Colorado Yule Marble -- Building Stone of the Lincoln ... - USGS

U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Colorado Yule Marble—
Building Stone of the Lincoln Memorial
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2162
Prepared in cooperation with the
National Park Service

Availability of Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey
Order U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications by calling
the toll-free telephone number 1Ð888ÐASKÐUSGS or contacting
the ofÞces listed below. Detailed ordering instructions,
along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the current-year
issues of the catalog ÒNew Publications of the U.S.
Geological Survey.Ó
Books, Maps, and Other Publications
By Mail
Books, maps, and other publications are available by mail
fromÑ
USGS Information Services
Box 25286, Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Publications include Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-
Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations,
Circulars, Fact Sheets, publications of general interest, single
copies of permanent USGS catalogs, and topographic and
thematic maps.
Over the Counter
Books, maps, and other publications of the U.S. Geological
Survey are available over the counter at the following USGS
Earth Science Information Centers (ESICÕs), all of which are
authorized agents of the Superintendent of Documents:
¥ Anchorage, AlaskaÑRm.
101, 4230 University Dr.
¥ Denver, ColoradoÑBldg.
810, Federal Center
¥ Menlo Park, CaliforniaÑRm.
3128, Bldg. 3,
345 MiddleÞeld Rd.
¥ Reston, VirginiaÑRm.
1C402, USGS National Center,
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr.
¥ Salt Lake City, UtahÑ2222
West, 2300 South (books and
maps available for inspection only)
¥ Spokane, WashingtonÑRm.
135, U.S. Post OfÞce
Building, 904 West Riverside Ave.
¥ Washington, D.C. ÑRm.
2650, Main Interior Bldg.,
18th and C Sts., NW.
Maps only may be purchased over the counter at the following
USGS ofÞce:
¥ Rolla, MissouriÑ1400
Independence Rd.
Electronically
Some USGS publications, including the catalog ÒNew Publications
of the U.S. Geological SurveyÓ are also available electronically
on the USGSÕs World Wide Web home page at
http://www.usgs.gov
Preliminary Determination of Epicenters
Subscriptions to the periodical ÒPreliminary Determination of
EpicentersÓ can be obtained only from the Superintendent of
Documents. Check or money order must be payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. Order by mail fromÑ
Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing OfÞce
Washington, DC 20402
Information Periodicals
Many Information Periodicals products are available through
the systems or formats listed below:
Printed Products
Printed copies of the Minerals Yearbook and the Mineral Commodity
Summaries can be ordered from the Superintendent of
Documents, Government Printing OfÞce (address above).
Printed copies of Metal Industry Indicators and Mineral Industry
Surveys can be ordered from the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, Pittsburgh Research Center, P.O. Box 18070, Pittsburgh,
PA 15236Ð0070.
Mines FaxBack: Return fax service
1. Use the touch-tone handset attached to your fax machineÕs
telephone jack. (ISDN [digital] telephones cannot be used with
fax machines.)
2. Dial (703) 648Ð4999.
3. Listen to the menu options and punch in the number of your
selection, using the touch-tone telephone.
4. After completing your selection, press the start button on
your fax machine.
CD-ROM
A disc containing chapters of the Minerals Yearbook (1993Ð
95), the Mineral Commodity Summaries (1995Ð97), a statistical
compendium (1970Ð90), and other publications is updated
three times a year and sold by the Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing OfÞce (address above).
World Wide Web
Minerals information is available electronically at
http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/
Subscription to the catalog ÒNew Publications of the U.S.
Geological SurveyÓ
Those wishing to be placed on a free subscription list for the
catalog ÒNew Publications of the U.S. Geological SurveyÓ
should write toÑ
U.S. Geological Survey
903 National Center
Reston, VA 20192

U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Colorado Yule Marble—
Building Stone of the Lincoln Memorial
By Elaine S. McGee
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2162
Prepared in cooperation with the
National Park Service
An investigation of differences in
durability of the Colorado Yule marble,
a widely used building stone

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CHARLES G. GROAT, Director
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1999
Published in the Eastern Region, Reston, Va.
Manuscript approved for publication August 13, 1998.
Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and
does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
For sale by
U.S. Geological Survey
Information Services
Box 25286, Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
McGee, E. S.
Colorado Yule marble: building stone of the Lincoln Memorial/by Elaine S. McGee.
p. cm.—(U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 2162)
Includes bibliographical references
1. Marble—Washington (D.C.)—Deterioration. 2. Lincoln Memorial (Washington, D.C.)—Inspection. 3. Lincoln, Abraham,
1809–1865—Monuments—Washington (D.C.) 4. Marble—Colorado. I. Title. II. Series.
QE75.B9 no. 2162
[TA428.M3]
557.3 s—dc21
[691’.2] 98–43141
CIP

CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... 3
Geologic Background .......................................................................................................... 3
Quality of the Marble ...................................................................................................... 4
Grades of the Marble ...................................................................................................... 5
Mineralogic and Physical Characteristics ............................................................................ 6
Grain Size and Texture .................................................................................................... 7
Mineral Phases and Compositions .................................................................................. 8
Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................. 17
Selection of the Yule Marble for the Lincoln Memorial ...................................................... 20
Colorado Yule Marble in the Lincoln Memorial ................................................................. 22
Durability of the Marble ...................................................................................................... 23
Condition of the Marble in the Lincoln Memorial ......................................................... 23
Variations in the Yule Marble ......................................................................................... 25
Condition of Yule Marble in Other Buildings ................................................................ 29
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 31
References Cited................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A. Microanalytical Techniques ............................................................................ 40
Appendix B. Information about the Quarrying and Inspection of Stone for
the Lincoln Memorial.................................................................................................. 41
Appendix C. Brief History of the Yule Quarry..................................................................... 43
FIGURES
1–3. Photographs of—
1. The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................ 2
2. The penthouse wall, Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C................................................................................ 2
3. Slabs of three grades of the Colorado Yule marble marketed in 1992............................................................... 5
4. Backscattered electron image of a polished thin section showing calcite texture in the Snowmass
Statuary Select sample of the Colorado Yule marble................................................................................................ 8
5. Graph of average calcite grain sizes in longest dimension measured for each type of
Colorado Yule marble sample ................................................................................................................................... 8
6–8. Graphs showing calcite grain size distribution in the Colorado Yule marble:
6. Graded samples and marble from the Lincoln Memorial and from the Colorado Yule quarry dump ............... 9
7. Colorado Golden Vein Select grade sample and the Lincoln Memorial pieces ................................................ 9
8. Colorado Golden Vein grade, Lincoln Memorial antefix, and the quarry dump samples ................................. 9
9, 10. Backscattered electron images of polished thin sections of the Colorado Yule marble showing—
9. Inclusion cluster in Colorado Golden Vein sample ........................................................................................... 11
10. Clusters of quartz inclusions in Colorado Golden Vein sample......................................................................... 12
11–18. Photographs of—
11. Weathered quartz inclusions in the Colorado Yule marble in the Colorado National Bank, Denver, Colo.,
and in the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................................... 15
12. Large feldspar inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial in a column shaft and on the roof parapet......................... 16
13. Sphalerite inclusion at the Lincoln Memorial occurring as an isolated grain with a rusty-brown surface ........ 18
14. Differential wear on a cheneau piece along the roof at the Lincoln Memorial.................................................. 24
III

IV
CONTENTS
15. Chalky white inclusion on a column shaft at the Lincoln Memorial ................................................................. 25
16. Blackened surficial alteration crusts on the underside of the roof entablature at the
Lincoln Memorial............................................................................................................................................... 26
17. Orange surficial discoloration on the penthouse at the Lincoln Memorial ........................................................ 27
18. A column shaft at the Lincoln Memorial showing a stone with a rough, sugared
surface adjacent to a stone that has retained a smooth, nearly new appearing surface finish ............................ 27
19. Sketch of calcite grain boundaries in marble showing the progressive change that occurs along grain
boundaries when water penetrates into the marble.................................................................................................... 28
20. Map showing locations in the United States where the Colorado Yule marble has been used for
notable buildings and major structures...................................................................................................................... 30
21–26. Photographs of—
21. Structures with exterior Colorado Yule marble that appear to be in very good condition ................................. 32
22. Cleaning at Denver Post Office in 1993 ............................................................................................................. 33
23. Reddish-orange stain at Denver Post Office after several cleaning attempts in 1993........................................ 33
24. Variations in surficial integrity in some blocks of marble at the State Capitol Annex
Building in Denver, Colo.................................................................................................................................... 34
25. The Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo., showing three column drums that retain original tooling marks
and a fourth stone that has a rough sugared surface with no trace of the original finish ................................... 35
26. Rifts or surficial cracks in the marble at the Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo. ............................................ 35
TABLES
1. Chemical analyses reported for the Colorado Yule marble .................................................................................... 4
2. Polished thin section samples of the Colorado Yule marble examined for mineralogic and
petrologic characteristics........................................................................................................................................ 6
3. Inclusion samples collected at the Lincoln Memorial ............................................................................................ 7
4. Calcite grain sizes in Colorado Yule marble samples............................................................................................. 9
5. Representative microprobe analyses of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples................................................. 11
6. Compositions of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples .................................................................................... 12
7. Representative microprobe analyses of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples.............................. 13
8. Compositions of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples ................................................................. 14
9. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of the
Colorado Yule marble............................................................................................................................................. 18
10. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of
commercial marbles tested by Kessler compared with average values for the Colorado
Yule marble and with data for five marbles tested for the Lincoln Memorial Commission ................................. 20
11. Notable examples of structures that used the Colorado Yule marble ..................................................................... 30
12. Buildings in Denver, Colo., with exterior Colorado Yule marble........................................................................... 30

CONTENTS V
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
[Both metric and customary units are used in this report. For convenience, conversion
factors are provided below]
Multiply By To obtain
Length
inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter
foot (ft) 0.3048 meter
mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer
micrometer (μm) 0.00003937 inch
millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch
centimeter (cm) 0.3937
Area
inch
square inch (in2 ) 6.452 square centimeter
square centimeter (cm 2 ) 0.1550
Volume
square inch
cubic foot (ft3 ) 0.02832 cubic meter
cubic meter (m3 ) 35.31
Mass
cubic foot
ton (2,000 lb) 0.9072 metric ton (1,000 kg)
milligram (mg) 0.00003527
Mass per unit volume (density)
ounce avoirdupois
pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3 ) 16.02
Pressure
kilogram per cubic
meter
pound-force per square inch
(lb/in2 )
kilogram-force per square
centimeter (kg/cm2 )
6.895 kilopascal
98.066 kilopascal
Temperature conversions for degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and degrees Celsius (°C) follow:
°C = (°F − 32)/1.8
°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32

VI
penthouse
entablature
doric column
stylobate
coping
cornice
frieze
antefix
cheneau
cornice
mutule w/ guttae
frieze
architrave
abacus
echinus
sinkage
drum
fluting
base
upper course
mid-course
foundation
course
upper stairs
CONTENTS
Architectural terms for parts of the Lincoln Memorial. Modified from Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott (1994).

Colorado Yule Marble—
Building Stone of the Lincoln Memorial
ABSTRACT
The Colorado Yule marble, quarried in Marble, Colo.,
is a very pure white marble, and it has been widely
acclaimed for its quality and purity. This marble has been
used for many prominent buildings; one of the most notable
is the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., built nearly
80 years ago. Although most of the marble in the memorial
appears to be in very good condition, some of the stones
have developed pronounced surficial roughness and show a
significant loss of carved details and rounded edges
compared with adjacent stones. Because adjacent blocks of
marble receive nearly identical exposure to weathering
agents that cause deterioration of the marble, it seems very
likely that this pronounced difference in durability of
adjacent stones arises from some inherent characteristic of
the marble.
The Colorado Yule marble is a nearly pure calcite marble
with minor inclusions of mica, quartz, and feldspar.
Compositions of the calcite and the inclusion phases in the
marble are typical for those phases. The calcite grains that
compose the marble are irregularly shaped and range from
100 to 600 micrometers in diameter. The texture of the marble
is even, with a slight preferred directional elongation
that is visible when the marble is cut in certain directions.
Physical tests of the marble show that its strength is comparable
to that of other marbles typically used in buildings.
Variations in the durability of the marble, like those
seen at the Lincoln Memorial, are not related to variations in
calcite composition or to the presence of inclusions in the
marble. Most likely, the variations arise from differences in
the calcite grain boundaries and the degree to which the
grains interlock with one another. Weak grain boundaries
that permit water or solutions to penetrate into the marble
and dissolve the calcite grains at their edges cause the marble
to disaggregate or “sugar.” Subtle differences in texture
that occur in the marble from various parts of the quarry
probably cause some stones to be more susceptible to this
1
Formerly with the U.S. Geological Survey. Present address: 17 Lyme
Bay, Columbia, SC 29212.
By Elaine S. McGee 1
form of deterioration. These differences may not be readily
visible when the stone is freshly quarried.
INTRODUCTION
Praised as one of the purest marbles ever quarried, and
cited as a rival to the Italian and Greek marbles of classic
fame, the Colorado Yule marble was selected and used for
the exterior stone of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington,
D.C. Built between 1914 and 1922, the Lincoln Memorial
(fig. 1) is one of the most visited and treasured memorials in
Washington, D.C., and it serves as a symbolic focus for
many historic gatherings. Some believe that the marble,
selected for the monument at the urging of the architect
Henry Bacon, is integral to the effect and feeling created by
the memorial (Thomas, 1993).
After nearly 80 years of exposure to rain, wind, temperature
variations, moisture, and urban pollution, the stone
in the Lincoln Memorial shows signs of deterioration. Characteristics
of the deterioration include places that display a
roughened “sugared” surface, inclusions in the marble that
stand above the rest of the stone surface, and stain discoloration
or blackened surficial alteration crusts. Many of these
weathering features are typical for marble buildings. However,
one of the most striking deterioration features of the
marble at the Lincoln Memorial occurs where adjacent
blocks of stone have weathered very differently. The surface
of one block of stone appears rough, with loose surficial
grains and softened edges on carved details, while an adjacent
block has retained its smooth surface and crisp edges
on carved features as seen in figure 2. Because adjacent
blocks are exposed to identical conditions of weather and
pollution, the difference in degree of deterioration must
arise from some characteristic of the stones. Characteristics
of the marble that might influence its durability include
composition of the calcite, type and composition of inclusion
minerals, grain size, texture, and physical properties.
This study was conducted to characterize the Yule marble
and to identify any characteristic(s) that might cause its
variable durability.
When the Colorado Yule marble was chosen for the
construction of the Lincoln Memorial, its selection was
1

2 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 1. The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. (dedicated 1922). Photograph taken in 1990.
Figure 2. Colorado Yule marble in the penthouse wall of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.
Although the memorial gives an overall appearance of clear, white marble, some blocks (upper part
of photograph) have a roughened, sugared surface, whereas adjacent blocks retain smooth surfaces
and crisp edges (bottom of photograph).

controversial. The Lincoln Memorial Commission heard
testimony questioning the quality and durability of the
Colorado Yule marble. Questions also were raised about the
recently opened quarry’s ability to provide the quantity and
size of the blocks of marble required for the construction of
the Lincoln Memorial. Additional physical tests of the
marble were made in response to these questions, and
additional reviews were made of the quarry and the stone
quality before the Colorado Yule marble was finally
selected.
As the marble is examined today and options for the
treatment and preservation of the stone are considered, it is
important that characteristics of the stone be understood.
Just as the mineralogical and physical characteristics of the
marble have influenced the manner and degree to which the
stone has weathered, these features may also influence the
effectiveness of treatments that may be applied to the stone.
An examination of the mineralogy and physical characteristics
of the Colorado Yule marble, along with observations of
the weathered features of this marble in various buildings,
may help guide the selection of appropriate preservation
choices for the marble in the Lincoln Memorial.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Steve Moore (National Park Service) helpfully provided
copies of items from the National Archives pertaining
to the marble and to the construction of the Lincoln Memorial.
The study described in this report was conducted as
part of a cooperative project between the U.S. Geological
Survey and the Denver Service Center of the National Park
Service, funded by agreement MT 2150–5–0001.
GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND
The Colorado Yule marble is quarried near the town of
Marble in Gunnison County, located in central Colorado. It
has been called by the trade names Colorado Yule marble
and Yule Colorado marble, but the stone comes from the
Leadville Limestone of Mississippian age (Vanderwilt,
1937; Gaskill and Godwin, 1966). The marble was formed
by contact metamorphism that occurred during the Tertiary
period, following the intrusion and uplift of the nearby granitic
Treasure Mountain dome (Vanderwilt and Fuller, 1935;
Ogden, 1961). Local contact with the heat and pressure
from the intrusion of hot granitic magma recrystallized the
Leadville Limestone, which elsewhere in Colorado is a
dark-blue stone, into a distinctive white marble (Vanderwilt,
1937).
In the vicinity of the quarry, the Leadville Limestone is
separated from the overlying and underlying rocks by
unconformities (Gaskill and Godwin, 1966). These unconformities
may be the reason why some reports about the
Colorado Yule marble (Bain, 1936b) erroneously place the
GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND 3
age of the marble as Silurian instead of Mississippian. The
indistinct nature of the boundaries of the Leadville Limestone,
particularly of the lower contacts near the Treasure
Mountain dome, also explains the varied thicknesses (166 ft
at the quarry on Yule Creek and 239 ft about 2,000 ft southeast
of the quarry; Vanderwilt, 1937) that have been
reported for the marble beds of the Leadville Limestone.
The Pennsylvanian Molas Formation, consisting of argillites
that were metamorphosed to hornfels and quartzite, lies
above the Leadville Limestone (Gaskill and Godwin, 1966).
The Dyer Dolomite Member of the Devonian Chaffee Formation
lies below the Leadville Limestone. The Dyer Dolomite
is locally cherty; it was metamorphosed to lime silicate
marble and occasional serpentine marble (Gaskill and Godwin,
1966).
The Yule marble occurs as a massive white bed, 166 to
239 ft thick, with outcrops that usually form prominent
cliffs (Vanderwilt and Fuller, 1935; Vanderwilt, 1937). Its
most distinctive and productive occurrence is along the west
side of Yule Creek, about 2.5 miles south of where Yule
Creek joins the Crystal River. The Colorado Yule marble
quarry is at an elevation of 9,300 ft above sea level on the
west side of Treasure Mountain along Yule Creek. About
1,400 ft above the valley formed by Yule Creek, a nearly
200-ft-thick bed of the marble is exposed for more than a
mile (Lakes, 1910). The marble bed dips at an angle into
Treasure Mountain; however, because the metamorphism
that formed the marble obscured most traces of bedding in
the marble, it has been difficult to determine the angle of dip
of the marble. Lakes (1910) reported that the marble dipped
51° into the mountain; Merrill (1914) reported a dip of 35°;
and Vanderwilt (1937) reported that chert bands, which are
believed to be parallel to the original bedding, dip 65°
southwest in a prospect tunnel a short distance south of the
quarry. The quarry openings are located on the thickest portion
of the bed where the exposed marble is overlain by a
“heavy covering” of rock that prevented erosion and limited
fracturing of the marble (Merrill, 1914). Vanderwilt (1937)
reported that the entire Mississippian formation (that is, the
Leadville Limestone) at the quarry is 239 ft thick. However,
Vanderwilt (1937) went on to say that only 100–125 ft of
this bed consists of salable white marble: the lower 100 ft is
unmarketable interbedded dolomite marble, and the upper
20–40 ft of the bed is also unmarketable because it contains
streaks of gray and red.
Early reports (Lakes, 1895) stressed the massive nature
of the white statuary (best quality) marble beds, emphasizing
that the beds could produce blocks of almost any size or
thickness. Lakes (1910) declared that the size of pure statuary
blocks that could be produced from this deposit was
limited only by the machinery capable of handling it. In his
report to the Lincoln Memorial Commission, Merrill (1914)
observed that there were two principal series of joints in the
marble (north 70° west, and 20° south of west) and commented
that the sizes of blocks obtainable from the quarry

4 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Table 1. Chemical analyses reported for the Colorado Yule marble.
[— = not reported]
would be limited only by the joints and by the occasional
chert layers. Knopf (1949) described two sets of fractures or
joints: one set runs N. 65° E. and dips about 80° NW.; a second
set of discontinuous, en echelon joints is not easily
seen, but the joints strike N. 55° W. and dip about 70° SW.
Vanderwilt (1937) also described two sets of fractures,
classed as “main headers” and “dry seams,” that are important
constraints in the quarrying of the marble, but he further
stated that despite these difficulties, the quarry can produce
large blocks of essentially pure-white marble.
In 1930, the Colorado Yule marble was selected for the
Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (in Arlington National Cemetery)
because it was the only quarry that could provide a
solid block of marble of the dimensions required (Vandenbusche
and Myers, 1991). When the 56-ton block of white
statuary marble was removed from the Colorado Yule marble
quarry for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, it was the
largest single piece of marble ever quarried (Through the
Ages, 1931).
QUALITY OF THE MARBLE
Two of the most remarkable characteristics of the Colorado
Yule marble deposit are its quality and purity. Lakes
1 2 3a 3b 4
CaCO 3 ------------------ 99.79 99.72 98.84 99.50 99.73
MgCO 3 ----------------- .15 trace .25 .19 .23
FeCO 3 ------------------- — — .02 .03 .04
MnCO 3 ----------------- — — .03 .02 .00
SiO 2 ---------------------- .04 .10 .27 .05 —
Al 2O 3 -------------------- — — .05 .03 —
Fe 2O 3 -------------------- — — .28 trace —
MnO 2 -------------------- — — .06 none —
CaSO 4 ------------------- — — .08 .09 —
Fe ------------------------- trace — — — —
MnO, FeO,
A1 2O 3--------------- — .07 — — —
Undetermined ------- — — .12 .09 —
Total ------------------- 99.98 99.89 100.00 100.00 100.00
SOURCE OF DATA AND DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES
1. Analysis of samples submitted for Lincoln Memorial Commission: (Anonymous, undated).
2. Analysis by Von Schultz and Low, Chemical Laboratory and Assay Office, Denver, Colo.: (Von Schultz and Low, 1907).
Sample: “Golden Vein White Marble.”
3. Analysis reported by Vanderwilt (1937, p. 160): “Made under direction of A.W. Smith, Case School of Applied Science,
Cleveland, Ohio, Oct. 22, 1907.”
Samples: 3a, “Streak” represents the markings in the “golden vein” marble; 3b, “Clear.”
4. Analysis reported by Busenberg and Plummer (1983): Magnesium determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry,
iron and manganese determined by spectrophotometry, calcium assumed to be only other cation present and calculated
from known weight of the sample and charge balance considerations.
Subsample (20–50 mg) of National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, sample 77858.
(1910) reported that the statuary marble from the Colorado
Yule deposit has “the same fine texture as the best grade
Italian.” Vanderwilt (1937) compared the statuary Yule marble
to the Pentelic marble of Greece. Even today, the Colorado
Yule statuary marble is praised, and its quality is
compared with that of the world-renowned Carrara marble
from Italy (Roberts, 1992; Compressed Air Magazine,
1993; Klusmire, 1993). The even grain size and lack of
inclusions are the reasons the Yule marble is praised as fine
and pure. Chemical analyses of the marble (table 1) confirm
its purity and show that it is composed mostly of calcium
carbonate (98.8–99.8 weight percent).
Vanderwilt (1937) described the Leadville Limestone
as pure calcite marble and reported that metamorphic minerals
(that is, noncalcite inclusions) are lacking over large
areas. Although the marble was formed by contact metamorphism,
and thus might show different characteristics
close to the intrusion that caused the metamorphism, typical
contact metamorphic silicate minerals did not form where
the “marbleized” Leadville Limestone came into contact
with the intrusive granite (Vanderwilt, 1937). The intrusive
contact exhibits relatively few metamorphic effects (Vanderwilt,
1937). Although the formations near the Treasure
Mountain dome were metamorphosed by the intrusion,

proximity to the dome probably had less influence on the
development of metamorphic minerals than structural and
permeability conditions along joints and contacts of various
formations (Vanderwilt, 1937). Where the marble is in
direct contact with the intrusive granite, the most consistent
change in the marble is that it becomes extremely coarse
grained; the grain size in the contact zone is 1.0–2.0 cm,
whereas the average grain size in the main body of marble is
2.0 mm (Bain, 1936a; Vanderwilt, 1937). Impurities in the
marble from the Yule quarry and variations in quality are
most common along joints in the stone (Merrill, 1914;
Vanderwilt, 1937).
Nodules of gray chert and bodies of “lime” are the two
main imperfections that have been encountered and that
have caused some problems in quarrying the Colorado Yule
marble. Merrill (1914) described lenticular masses of a
dense structure with a water-blue tint that were unpredictably
encountered in quarrying, but he reported that they
could be avoided by judicious quarrying. Vanderwilt (1937)
described two types of “lime” that were avoided by the
quarrymen because of their color and because of the fractures
that the bodies contain. One of the types of “lime”
forms irregular masses from a few inches to several feet
across that are slightly elongated parallel to the bedding.
These masses consist of fine-grained dolomite mixed with
calcite-filled fractures (Vanderwilt, 1937). The second type
of “lime” is also gray but has a tabular form with welldefined
boundaries parallel to the bedding; cross sections of
these bodies are lenticular, and the dimensions may be as
GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND 5
Figure 3. Slabs of three grades of the Colorado Yule marble marketed in 1992. Note how the
appearance and abundance of inclusions in the samples vary with the grade. From left to right, the
grades are Snowmass Statuary, Colorado Golden Vein Select, and Colorado Golden Vein.
large as 4 ft in length and 1 ft in thickness (Vanderwilt,
1937). These lime bodies have rims consisting of fine
quartz, calcite, tremolite, and possibly diopside with some
local concentrations of sphalerite along the borders (Vanderwilt,
1937).
GRADES OF THE MARBLE
The most celebrated samples of the Colorado Yule
marble are pure white, with no apparent variation in mineral
content or in grain size. However, the Colorado Golden Vein
grade of the Yule marble, which contains inclusions that
appear as fine lines of golden veining, is also well known.
The Yule marble is classified into grades by the quarry to
reflect stone quality and the amount of inclusions in the
stone. Grade names change with time; in 1992, four grades
of Yule marble were marketed for use in buildings. From
highest grade to lowest, these are Snowmass Statuary Select
(SSS), Snowmass Statuary (SS), Colorado Golden Vein
Select (GV select), and Colorado Golden Vein (GV); the
last three grades are shown in figure 3. A “select” designation
indicates fewer inclusions and better quality. The
Snowmass Statuary grades contain very few inclusions and
are nearly pure white with an even grain. The Colorado
Golden Vein grades are also predominantly white but contain
inclusions that occur as thin linear streaks or as clouds
of gold-bronze, tan, or gray (fig. 3). Vanderwilt (1937)
described five grades of marble: statuary marble, veined or

6 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Table 2. Polished thin section samples of the Colorado Yule marble examined for mineralogic and petrologic characteristics.
[Trade names used are from 1992; names of grades currently marketed may differ. EYP=Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott; NPS=National Park Service. Sample
numbers show how many thin sections were examined but are not used in the rest of the report because only representative and averaged data are given]
Sample type Description Sample number Source of material sectioned
SSS ------------- Snowmass Statuary Select grade SSS Slab obtained by David Coe, EYP, from Colorado
Yule Marble Company in 1992 as part of his work
for NPS on the “Lincoln Memorial Stone Survey”
(EYP, 1994). Thin sections were cut from these
samples with permission of EYP and NPS.
SS--------------- Snowmass Statuary grade SS–1 Ditto.
CGVS ---------- Colorado Golden Vein Select grade CGVS–1
CGVS–2
Ditto.
CGV------------ Colorado Golden Vein grade CGV–1
CGV–2
Ditto.
GV-------------- Colorado Golden Vein grade GV1–1 Samples given to E.S. McGee by Colorado Yule Mar-
LMP------------ Pieces removed from Lincoln Memorial
during renovation; possibly
from stylobate steps; possibly in
mid-1970’s.
LM0713 ------- Piece that broke from a badly weathered
antefix on the Lincoln Memo-
rial.
CYMR --------- Piece of marble collected from the
quarry dump pile because of its
badly disaggregated condition.
second statuary marble, golden-vein marble, bottom-base
stock, and crystal grade. The grade designations used in this
study appear to correspond to four of Vanderwilt's descriptions;
however, there is no current grade specified that corresponds
to the bottom-base stock grade described by
Vanderwilt.
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics of marbles such as their texture, grain
size, color, and inclusions influence the quality and the
durability of the stone. Although pure-white, even-textured
marbles are sought after and praised, most marbles also contain
some mineral inclusions within the calcite matrix that
give the marble a characteristic appearance. Merrill (1914)
described the pure whiteness and compact crystallization of
the Colorado Yule marble, but he also noted the presence of
chert bands in the marble and described two types of colored
veins: a dark streak that he attributed to original
organic matter and a yellow veining that he attributed to
penetration of iron or manganese oxide solutions along lines
of strain. Bain (1936b) reported that the veining in the Colorado
Yule Golden Vein marble is predominantly quartz with
small amounts of iron- and magnesium-bearing amphiboles,
the latter giving the veins their characteristic color. Vanderwilt
(1937) listed dolomite, chert, diopside, quartz, sphalerite,
and a small amount of fuchsite as inclusions in the
GV2–1
LMP1–1
LMP2–1
LM0713–1 Ditto.
CYMR–1
CYMR–2
ble Company in 1993.
Samples given to E.S. McGee by NPS as part of
cooperative work.
Sample collected by E.S. McGee from refuse pile at
Yule marble quarry.
Colorado Yule marble. Many of the reported mineral inclusions
in the marble appear to be minor constituents or are
constituents of zones of the marble that have not been routinely
quarried. An example is fuchsite, which was reported
by Merrill (1914) from an occurrence in the cliff face
between quarries number 2 and 3 (see app. B for quarry
description).
For this study of the Colorado Yule marble, polished
thin sections were made from samples of all four grades of
the marble, from several pieces of stone previously removed
from the Lincoln Memorial, and from a sample collected at
the Yule marble quarry dump pile (table 2). More sections
were made from the Colorado Golden Vein grade stone than
any other in order to observe the largest variety of inclusion
phases present in the marble. The available samples from
the Lincoln Memorial were examined and compared with
samples currently quarried to look for similarities between
older and newer quarried stone. The disaggregated sample
from the quarry dump pile was selected because it was a
rare crumbly piece; it was examined to see if any characteristics
could be identified that explain its lack of durability
compared to most typical samples of Yule marble.
The polished thin section samples were examined by
using optical and scanning electron microscopy to
characterize the texture and grain size of the samples.
Mineral phases in the samples were identified with
qualitative energy-dispersive X-ray analysis on the scanning
electron microscope. Calcite and some inclusion phases
were analyzed quantitatively by using a JEOL JXA–8900

Table 3. Inclusion samples collected at the Lincoln Memorial.
electron microprobe (app. A). The compositions of the main
constituents of the marble were determined in order to
compare them with the compositions of typical minerals in
marble; variations in composition or unusual characteristics
might influence the marble durability.
Samples of weathered inclusion minerals were collected
at the Lincoln Memorial and were analyzed to identify
the phases (table 3). Typically, I collected these samples
because they appeared significantly different from the surrounding
stone. They were collected by scraping or prying
small (usually a few grains to less than 0.5 cm 2 area) pieces
away from the matrix, or they were collected where a small
piece of stone (less than 2 cm long) crumbled or broke when
it was touched. These samples were examined optically and
were analyzed by using the scanning electron microscope
with qualitative energy-dispersive X-ray analysis. Where
there was sufficient material, some samples were also analyzed
by using powder X-ray diffraction.
GRAIN SIZE AND TEXTURE
The grain size and texture of marble influence both its
appearance and its durability. Qualities that are often sought
in marble are an even texture, a homogeneous appearance,
and a luminous surface that polishes well. Fine-grained
marbles have a homogeneous appearance and may take a
polish better than some coarser grained marbles. Similarly,
marbles with tightly joined calcite grains may appear more
luminous when polished and may prove to be more durable
than marbles that have large or loosely bonded grains.
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 7
[Attribute: portion of the memorial from which the sample was collected.
Field description: appearance of the sample in the memorial, includes observations made by E.S. McGee while sampling in 1990–93.
Phases: alt = alteration, ap = apatite, biot = biotite, Ca-fsp = calcium feldspar, cc = calcite, dol = dolomite, fs = feldspar, K-fsp = potassium feldspar,
mix = mixture, mus = muscovite, pyr = pyrite, qtz = quartz.
Phases were identified with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis on a scanning electron microscope or with powder X-ray diffraction]
Sample number Attribute Field description Phases
LM00713–3 ---------------- Antefix Inclusion, pried off Ca-fsp.
LM00713–4 ---------------- Parapet Inclusion, raised; pried off K-fsp, Ca-fsp.
LM10820–1 ---------------- Penthouse wall Dark-gray inclusion streak, raised, with pyr K-fsp, mus, pyr, Ca-fsp.
LM10820–2 ---------------- Penthouse wall Yellowish-orange vein fill; scraped easily Dol? fluffy coating.
LM10820–3 ---------------- Parapet Pried raised fs? inclusion off K-fsp.
LM10916–2 ---------------- Attic wall Raised inclusion with dark edges; pried off K-fsp, pyr, alt.
LM10916–4 ---------------- Attic wall White, raised area chalky under; came off easily Qtz, cc.
LM10916–5 ---------------- Attic wall Chalky white area; fine powder, scraped easily Cc, qtz.
LM10916–6 ---------------- Parapet wall Pinkish-tan grains with fungus “inclusion” area Organic + qtz? + mix.
LM20603–1 ---------------- Column White area, center large inclusion; hard, scraped Cc, qtz.
LM20603–2 ---------------- Column Rim of large inclusion (603–1); hard to pry out Qtz, cc.
LM20603–3 ---------------- Column Rusty-black in raised grayish-brown inclusion;
hard to remove.
Pyr, biot?, ap?, Ca-fsp?
LM20603–4 ---------------- Column Raised, rusty inclusion; pried pieces easily, left
shiny/metallic film under.
Sphalerite, cc, alt.
LM20603–5 ---------------- Column Yellowish, soft, fills vein which follows crack Dol, alt?
The fabric and texture of the Colorado Yule marble
have been widely studied and examined. Early reports of the
marble described its fine texture and fine crystallization
(Lakes, 1910). The grain size of the Yule marble is reported
as 2,000–3,000 grains to the square centimeter (Vanderwilt,
1937, quoted Bain, 1936a, written commun.). Knopf (1949)
reported grain sizes in the marble as 0.5–1.5 mm, and Thill
and others (1969) reported an average grain size of 0.4 mm
for the sample they studied. The edges of the calcite grains
in the Colorado Yule marble are deeply crenulated (irregularly
and minutely notched and scalloped) (Bain, 1936b);
these crenulations are believed to account for the resistance
to weathering of the marble. Bain (1936b) also reported that
the calcite crystals in the Yule marble are aligned so that the
long axes of the grains are essentially perpendicular to the
principal veining in the deposit. From a geographically oriented
block of marble, Knopf (1949) examined calcite grain
dimensions in thin sections cut with respect to the grain
(texture) of the marble. Calcite grains are distinctly elongated
in sections cut normal to the strike and dip vectors of
the grain (longer to shorter axis: 1.8:1) and in sections cut
parallel to the strike and normal to the dip vectors (longer to
shorter axis: 3:1), but they are nearly equidimensional in
samples cut parallel to the strike and dip vectors of the grain
(Knopf, 1949).
As the major constituent of the marble, calcite grains
determine texture and fabric characteristics of the stone. In
the samples studied for this report, the calcite grains are
irregularly shaped, and they are generally equidimensional
to slightly elongated with irregular edges (fig. 4). Some of

8 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 4. Backscattered electron image of a polished thin section showing calcite texture in the
Snowmass Statuary Select sample of the Colorado Yule marble. The irregular shapes of the grains
and the range of grain sizes in one area are fairly typical of this marble. “Micron” is another name
for micrometer.
the grains meet at 120° angles, indicating that parts of the
marble are well recrystallized.
The calcite is varied in size, ranging from about 50 to
1,000 micrometers in the longest dimension. In four to eight
randomly chosen areas of each polished thin section, the
average calcite grain is about 300 micrometers in diameter
(fig. 5). The calcite grain sizes in the four grades of marble,
in several samples from the Lincoln Memorial, and in a
crumbling piece of marble obtained from the quarry dump
pile are compared in table 4. Because the average calcite
grain sizes are so similar, the distribution of grain sizes in
the samples was plotted (fig. 6) to see whether there are any
textural differences among the samples. Most of the calcite
grains in the graded samples are between 100 and 600
micrometers in diameter (fig. 6A). The four graded samples
have fairly similar grain size distributions, but the Snowmass
Statuary has a less pronounced peak between 200 and
300 micrometers. The grain sizes vary more widely in the
Snowmass Statuary grade than in the other grades. The
grain-size distribution patterns for the samples from the Lincoln
Memorial and from the quarry dump are also similar to
the patterns for the graded samples (fig. 6B). The Colorado
Golden Vein Select grade samples are most similar to the
stylobate(?) pieces from the Lincoln Memorial (LMP–1 and
LMP–2) (fig. 7). In contrast, the texture of the sample from
a crumbling antefix at the memorial is very similar to the
texture of the Colorado Golden Vein grade samples (lowest
grade) and of the disaggregated sample from the quarry
dump (fig. 8).
GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)
500
400
300
200
100
0
SSS SS CGVS CGV+GV LMP ANTEFIX CYMR
(LM0713–1)
TYPE OF SAMPLE
Figure 5. Average calcite grain sizes in longest dimension
measured for each type of Colorado Yule marble sample. Sample
types are explained in table 2; grain size ranges are given in
table 4.
MINERAL PHASES AND COMPOSITIONS
Acid dissolution and staining tests described by Knopf
(1949) showed that the Colorado Yule marble is practically
a pure calcite marble with very few inclusions of other
minerals. Whole-rock chemical analyses of the marble
given in table 1 demonstrate the purity of the marble. Thill

NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED
A
200
150
100
50
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 9
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)
GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)
SSS SS CGVS CGV+GV
Antefix (LM0713–1) LMP Quarry dump (CYMR)
Figure 6. Calcite grain size distribution in the Colorado Yule marble in (A) graded samples and (B) samples from the Lincoln Memorial
and from the Colorado Yule quarry dump. Sample types are explained in table 2; grain size data are given in table 4.
NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED
200
150
100
50
0
Table 4. Calcite grain sizes (in micrometers) in Colorado Yule marble samples.
[Avg = average, Min = minimum, Max = maximum, # grns = number of grains. Grain sizes were measured on scanning
electron microscope images]
Type of sample
(table 2)
Avg Min Max # grns
Snowmass Statuary Select (SSS) --------- 281 52 971 358
Snowmass Statuary (SS) ------------------- 389 63 1180 288
Colorado Golden Vein Select (CGVS)--- 311 58 1006 386
Colorado Golden Vein (CGV+GV) ------ 264 44 738 271
Lincoln Memorial pieces (LMP)--------- 305 62 1039 550
Lincoln Memorial antefix (LM0713) ---- 230 52 719 230
Quarry dump (CYMR)--------------------- 289 46 1390 508
B
NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)
GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)
CGVS LMP CGV+GV Quarry dump (CYMR) Antefix (LM0713–1)
Figure 7. The calcite grain size distribution for the Colorado
Golden Vein Select grade sample (CGVS from fig. 6A) is similar
to the grain size distribution for the Lincoln Memorial pieces
(LMP from fig. 6B).
NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED
200
150
100
50
200
150
100
50
Figure 8. The calcite grain size distributions for the Colorado
Golden Vein grade (CGV + GV from fig. 6A), the Lincoln
Memorial antefix (from fig. 6B), and the quarry dump samples
(from fig. 6B) are similar to one another.

10 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
and others (1969) reported that a 1,000-point-count modal
analysis of the Yule marble showed it to be 99 percent
calcite and 1 percent accessory minerals by volume. The
accessory minerals reported by Thill and others (1969)
differ slightly from the inclusion phases identified in the
samples for this study. However, Thill and others did not
provide any more details about the sample or about the
methods used for mineral identification.
Samples examined for this study—in hand specimen
and in thin sections made from recently quarried samples of
the marble and from pieces in the Lincoln Memorial—show
that the Yule marble is predominantly composed of white
calcite. The most common inclusion in the marble is quartz.
Minor inclusions include muscovite, phlogopite, feldspar,
pyrite, sphene, apatite, zircon, and rutile. In inclusion-rich
samples of the marble, such as those from the Colorado
Golden Vein Select and Colorado Golden Vein grades, the
inclusions commonly occur in clusters (fig. 9) and, with the
exception of some quartz grains, are finer grained than the
calcite.
The calcite (CaCO3) in the Yule marble is nearly pure
calcium carbonate (table 5). It does not vary significantly
among the four grades of marble (table 6). The compositions
of the calcite grains in samples from the antefix, stylobate(?),
and quarry dump are also very similar to the
compositions in the graded marble samples. Minor constituents
determined in the calcite include MgO, MnO, FeO, and
SrO; all are present in amounts less than 0.5 weight percent
(tables 5 and 6). There is no correlation between the grade
of the marble and the presence or amount of the minor constituents
in the calcite.
Quartz (SiO2) is the most abundant inclusion in these
samples of the Yule marble. The quartz occurs as rounded
grains in clusters with other phases or in clusters of quartz
grains (fig. 10). The quartz grains range in diameter from 7
to 400 micrometers. Electron microprobe analyses of quartz
inclusions in samples of the Yule marble show that the
quartz is nearly pure SiO2 (tables 7 and 8). Quartz in the
Colorado Golden Vein samples appears to be purer than
quartz in the Colorado Golden Vein Select samples (table
8). However, this slight trend may arise because the quartz
grains analyzed in the Select grade sample are smaller and
commonly occur with other (usually mica) phases, whereas
the quartz grains analyzed in the standard Golden Vein samples
are generally larger, more isolated grains. Weathered
quartz inclusions occur as rounded, translucent gray grains
that may be slightly raised compared to the surrounding calcite
(fig. 11A). Some quartz inclusions form lines or veins,
where they appear as clusters of small rounded grains (fig.
11B). Vanderwilt (1937) reported that the crystal grade of
the Yule marble was not marketed after 1936 because it contained
a quantity of chert that occurred in thin streaks; by
that time, studies had shown that the chert weathered to an
unacceptable, dark-gray color. It is probable that some of
the quartz that occurs as distinct, dull-gray, rounded grains
in the stone at the Lincoln Memorial corresponds to the
chert described by Vanderwilt.
Mica inclusions occur as thin gold to brown lines and
streaks, and they also occur with quartz in clouds of gray
mixed with brown. Individual, isolated grains of mica are
rare in the Colorado Golden Vein and Colorado Golden Vein
Select samples. The mica grains range from 10 to 151
micrometers in the longest dimension; they average about
50 micrometers in length. Rare inclusions of mica in the
Snowmass Statuary grades occur in thin lines or as small
clusters of two to three grains.
Most of the mica grains in the Yule samples of this
study are muscovite, but some phlogopite has also been
found. Muscovite in the samples is close to the ideal composition
for muscovite—K 2Al 4Si 6Al 2O 20(OH,F) 4— but it contains
small amounts (typically 0.5–2.0 weight percent) of
MgO (tables 7 and 8). Trace amounts of a calcium oxide
component detected in the muscovites (tables 7 and 8) may
come from simultaneous analysis of the adjacent calcite. A
comparison of muscovites in the two grades of Colorado
Golden Vein samples shows that muscovites in the Golden
Vein samples contain slightly higher amounts of MgO, CaO,
and Na 2O than muscovites in the Golden Vein Select grade
samples (table 8).
Mica inclusions in the marble at the Lincoln Memorial
do not have any distinctive weathering features. On a small
scale, the area around inclusion streaks may be rougher with
more relief in the calcite because of the loss of small flakes
of mica. However, for the most part, the weathering of the
mica inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial is not as noticeable
as the weathering of other, larger, more isolated inclusion
phases such as feldspar and quartz.
Feldspar inclusions are present in the Colorado Golden
Vein samples. They are intergrown in clusters with muscovite,
quartz, and sphene (fig. 9), but they are not major constituents
of these samples. Typical feldspar grains in the
polished sections studied are from 20 to 80 micrometers in
length; however, there are some rather large (1.5–3.5 cm)
feldspar inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial (fig. 12A).
Potassium-, sodium-, and calcium-bearing feldspars have all
been found in the samples (tables 7 and 8). Calcium feldspar
occurs as larger grains and appears to be slightly more abundant
than the other two feldspars, but this relative abundance
has not been determined statistically. In addition to its size,
weathered feldspar is quite noticeable in some areas of the
Lincoln Memorial (fig. 12B) because it is typically white to
gray and is raised relative to the surrounding calcite. Weathered
feldspar appears blocky, and gray feldspar grains are
less translucent than quartz inclusions. Although some feldspar
occurrences stand out, feldspar is a less common inclusion
than quartz in the Lincoln Memorial stone.
Text continues on page 17.

MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 11
Figure 9. Backscattered electron image of an inclusion cluster in a polished thin section of the
Colorado Golden Vein sample of the Colorado Yule marble. This image shows the mineral phases as
shades of gray that reflect their average atomic weight. Ap = apatite, Fsp = feldspar, Mic = mica,
Qtz = quartz, Sphn = sphene.
Table 5. Representative microprobe analyses of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples.
[SSS = Snowmass Statuary Select; SS = Snowmass Statuary; CGVS = Colorado Golden Vein Select; CGV+GV = Colorado Golden Vein;
LM0713 = sample from crumbling antefix at Lincoln Memorial; LMP = piece from stylobate(?) at Lincoln Memorial; CYMR = crumbling
piece of poor-quality marble from quarry dump. Carbon dioxide (CO 2) was determined by difference and stoichiometry]
SSS SS CGVS
CGV
+GV
Major oxides in weight percent
LM0713 LMP CYMR
CaO------ 55.60 56.55 55.83 55.99 55.90 55.68 55.96
MgO----- .05 .06 .08 .08 .07 .06 .03
MnO----- .00 .02 .03 .05 .07 .10 .14
FeO ------ .00 .00 .02 .03 .01 .06 .01
SrO ------ .00 .03 .00 .00 .04 .00 .01
CO2 ------ 44.35 43.35 44.03 43.85 43.91 44.10 43.85
Number of atoms
Ca-------- 0.988 1.015 0.995 1.000 0.998 0.992 0.999
Mg ------- .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001
Mn ------- .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .002
Fe -------- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000
Sr -------- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
C --------- 1.005 .992 1.001 .999 .999 1.002 .999
Sum---- 1.995 2.008 1.999 2.001 2.001 1.998 2.001

12 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Table 6. Compositions of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples.
[Avg = average, Min = minimum, Max = maximum, Sdv = standard deviation. Number in parentheses is the number of electron
microprobe analyses of the sample. Compositions are in weight percent]
Snowmass Statuary Select, SSS (25) Snowmass Statuary, SS (17)
Avg Min Max Sdv Avg Min Max Sdv
CaO--------- 56.28 55.37 56.79 0.361 56.43 55.64 56.82 0.303
MgO -------- .06 .01 .09 .019 .06 .01 .12 .026
MnO -------- .03 .00 .14 .041 .02 .00 .12 .033
FeO --------- .02 .00 .16 .042 .02 .00 .05 .020
SrO --------- .00 .00 .03 .007 .01 .00 .04 .012
CO2 --------- 43.60 43.05 44.44 .366 43.47 43.08 44.35 .315
Colorado Golden Vein Select, CGVS (49) Colorado Golden Vein, CGV+GV (64)
Avg Min Max Sdv Avg Min Max Sdv
CaO--------- 56.32 54.92 56.82 0.393 56.15 55.12 56.83 0.456
MgO -------- .06 .01 .11 .022 .11 .01 .33 .052
MnO -------- .06 .00 .41 .096 .06 .00 .40 .076
FeO --------- .02 .00 .21 .040 .04 .00 .16 .043
SrO --------- .01 .00 .08 .020 .01 .00 .07 .017
CO2 --------- 43.52 43.04 44.64 .355 43.64 43.07 44.63 .446
Lincoln Memorial antefix, LM0713 (24) Lincoln Memorial stylobate(?), LMP (39)
Avg Min Max Sdv Avg Min Max Sdv
CaO--------- 55.82 54.82 56.84 0.612 56.31 55.52 56.81 0.412
MgO -------- .08 .01 .13 .032 .05 .02 .09 .017
MnO -------- .03 .00 .12 .042 .08 .00 .37 .110
FeO --------- .02 .00 .18 .040 .02 .00 .14 .033
SrO --------- .02 .00 .07 .023 .01 .00 .07 .019
CO2 --------- 44.03 43.08 44.88 .565 43.52 43.06 44.41 .372
Avg
Quarry dump, CYMR (43)
Min Max Sdv
CaO--------- 55.77 55.15 56.63 0.420
MgO -------- .05 .02 .13 .020
MnO -------- .06 .00 .22 .072
FeO --------- .03 .00 .17 .041
SrO --------- .01 .00 .12 .022
CO2 --------- 44.07 43.16 44.79 .407
Figure 10. Backscattered electron image of clusters of quartz inclusions in a polished thin section
of the Colorado Golden Vein sample of the Colorado Yule marble. This image shows the mineral
phases as shades of gray that reflect their average atomic weight. Dark gray = quartz, medium dark
gray = mica, medium light gray = feldspar, lightest gray = calcite, white = oxides and (or) sulfides.

Quartz
GV
Major oxides and F, in weight percent
CGVS
SiO2 ----------------- 99.40 98.82
Al2O3 ------------ .00 .00
CaO -------------- .01 .10
K2O -------------- .00 .01
Na2O------------- .00 .00
MgO ------------- .00 .00
FeO -------------- .01 .07
BaO -------------- .03 ---
MnO ------------- --- .03
TiO2-------------- --- .01
F------------------ --- .00
Total----------- 99.46
Number of atoms
99.05
Si ----------------- 3.999 3.996
Al ---------------- .000 .000
Ca ---------------- .001 .004
K ----------------- .000 .001
Na ---------------- .000 .000
Mg --------------- .000 .000
Fe ---------------- .000 .002
Ba ---------------- .000 ---
Mn --------------- --- .001
Ti ----------------- --- .000
F------------------ --- .000
Sum ----------- 4.001 4.004
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 13
Table 7. Representative microprobe analyses of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples.
[GV = Colorado Golden Vein grade; CGVS = Colorado Golden Vein Select grade; SS = Snowmass Statuary grade; LMP = Lincoln
Memorial stylobate(?) piece; calc = calculated; cat = cation; fsp = feldspar (K-rich, Na-rich, or Ca-rich); ox = oxide. Totals may
appear inexact because of rounding]
Feldspar—GV
K-fsp Na-fsp Ca-fsp
Major oxides and F, in weight percent
SiO2 -------- 64.96 67.61 49.68
Al2O3------- 18.65 20.59 32.61
CaO -------- .08 1.01 14.88
K2O--------- 15.56 .18 .09
Na2O ------- .53 11.38 2.92
MgO-------- .00 .04 .01
FeO--------- .02 .00 .01
BaO -------- .16 .02 ---
MnO-------- --- --- .04
TiO2 -------- --- --- .03
F ------------ --- --- .06
Total------ 99.96 100.83 100.30
Number of atoms
Si ----------- 2.997 2.942 2.260
Al ----------- 1.013 1.055 1.746
Ca----------- .004 .047 .724
K------------ .914 .010 .005
Na ---------- .047 .958 .257
Mg---------- .000 .003 .001
Fe ----------- .001 .000 .000
Ba----------- .003 .000 ---
Mn---------- --- --- .000
Ti ----------- --- --- .001
F ------------ --- --- .008
Sum ------ 4.978 5.015 5.005
Muscovite (mica)
GV
Major oxides and F, in weight percent
CGVS
SiO2 ----------------- 47.35 46.47
Al2O3 --------------- 36.12 36.52
MgO ------------- .48 .39
CaO-------------- .21 .19
FeO -------------- .06 .02
MnO ------------- .04 .00
TiO2 ----------------- .15 .17
K2O -------------- 9.81 10.32
Na2O------------- .22 .20
F------------------ .00 .02
Total ----------- 94.43
Number of atoms
94.28
Si----------------- 6.269 6.187
Al ---------------- 5.629 5.724
Mg --------------- .094 .076
Ca ---------------- .030 .028
Fe ---------------- .007 .002
Mn --------------- .005 .000
Ti----------------- .014 .017
K ----------------- 1.653 1.749
Na---------------- .057 .051
F------------------ .000 .008
OH calc --------- 4.000 3.992
H2O calc -------- 4.532 4.497
F=O-------------- .000 .008
Ox sum-------- 98.97 98.77
Cat sum ------ 13.757 13.834
Pyrite
GV CGVS SS LMP
Elements, in weight percent
Fe --------- 46.80 46.59 46.13 46.58
Co--------- .08 .15 .33 .10
Ni --------- .08 .31 .23 .07
Cu--------- .00 .01 .04 .00
Zn--------- .00 .00 .00 .00
Pb --------- .14 .22 .36 .13
S----------- 53.85 53.90 53.59 53.84
Total ---- 100.95 101.17 100.67 100.71
Sphalerite Galena
GV GV LMP
Elements, in weight percent
Fe------------ 2.50 3.15 0.08
Co ----------- .00 .01 .01
Ni------------ .02 .04 .01
Cu ----------- .02 .09 .02
Zn ----------- 63.44 .00 .00
Pb------------ .03 81.34 86.49
S ------------- 32.52 14.21 13.49
Total------ 98.53 98.84 100.10

14 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Table 8. Compositions of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples.
[Avg = average, Min = minimum, Max = maximum. CGVS = Colorado Golden Vein Select grade; SS = Snowmass Statuary grade; LMP = Lincoln
Memorial stylobate(?) piece. Number in parentheses is the number of electron microprobe analyses of the sample. Ranges are not shown
for small groups of analyses. Dashes (---) indicate not analyzed]
Feldspars: Colorado Golden Vein
K-fsp (3) Na-fsp (2) Ca-fsp (7)
SiO 2 ----------- 64.56 68.07 50.99
Al 2O 3---------- 18.84 20.61 31.26
CaO ----------- .21 .99 13.46
K 2O ----------- 15.34 .14 .60
Na 2O ---------- .55 11.41 3.17
MgO ---------- .00 .03 .01
FeO ----------- .02 .00 .01
BaO ----------- .16 .04 ---
MnO ---------- --- --- .02
TiO 2 ----------- --- --- .01
F --------------- --- --- .04
Quartz
Colorado Golden Vein (10) Colorado Golden Vein Select (6)
Avg Min Max Avg Min Max
SiO 2 --------- 99.30 98.28 99.95 98.43 98.19 98.82
Al 2O 3 ----- .02 .00 .06 .16 .00 .47
CaO ------ .04 .00 .14 .12 .02 .20
K 2O------- .00 .00 .01 .05 .00 .13
Na 2O ----- .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00
MgO------ .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .02
FeO------- .01 .00 .04 .03 .00 .07
BaO ------ .02 .00 .05 .00 .00 .00
MnO------ --- --- --- .02 .00 .06
TiO 2 ------ --- --- --- .04 .00 .18
F ---------- --- --- --- .04 .00 .10
Muscovites (micas)
Colorado Golden Vein (42) Colorado Golden Vein Select (16)
Avg Min Max Avg Min Max
SiO 2 ------ 47.56 45.68 51.43 47.15 46.28 48.04
Al 2O 3----- 35.85 28.51 37.66 37.12 36.15 38.19
MgO ----- .98 .30 3.07 .41 .15 .61
CaO ------ .29 .04 1.15 .19 .05 .39
FeO ------ .09 .00 .27 .02 .00 .06
MnO ----- .01 .00 .05 .01 .00 .04
TiO 2 ------ .09 .00 .37 .07 .00 .17
K 2O ------ 9.91 8.50 10.70 10.06 9.53 10.43
Na 2O ----- .22 .02 .91 .17 .12 .31
F ---------- .07 .00 .25 .06 .00 .21
Pyrites
Colorado Golden Vein (35) CGVS (3) SS (3) LMP (17)
Avg Min Max Avg Avg Avg Min Max
Fe--------- 46.92 45.08 47.82 46.28 46.57 47.06 46.38 47.75
Co -------- .13 .05 .68 .31 .22 .09 .06 .13
Ni--------- .15 .00 .54 .26 .12 .06 .00 .16
Cu -------- .01 .00 .05 .00 .02 .02 .00 .06
Zn -------- .01 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .02
Pb -------- .21 .00 1.40 .27 .29 .12 .00 .37
S ---------- 54.00 53.20 54.47 53.79 53.63 53.85 53.58 54.25

MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 15
Figure 11. Weathered quartz inclusions in the Colorado Yule marble. A, Typical occurrence of
large, fairly isolated quartz grains (in the Colorado National Bank, Denver, Colo.). B, Small quartz
grains may be clustered, appearing as a vein in the marble (darker gray areas at the lower right of the
photograph; in the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.).

16 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 12. Large feldspar inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial (A) in a column shaft and (B) on the
roof parapet; note how the feldspar stands above the surrounding calcite.

Pyrite, sphene, apatite, rutile, zircon, and sphalerite all
occur as minor inclusions in the marble. With the exception
of pyrite, which ranges in size from about 20 to 160
micrometers, these inclusions are small (typically about 10
micrometers). Rutile, zircon, and apatite are minor inclusions
visible in polished sections of the marble but not
noticeable on weathered surfaces in buildings. Apatite is the
most common of these minor inclusions; it occurs as part of
the inclusion-rich clusters in the Colorado Golden Vein
samples, along with quartz, mica, and occasional feldspar
(fig. 9). Sphene, which is mostly noticeable in thin sections
of the marble, also occurs in the clusters of quartz, mica,
and feldspar in the Golden Vein samples (fig. 9). Typically,
pyrite and sphalerite inclusions occur in small groups of a
few isolated grains (fig. 13). The composition of the pyrite
in the samples studied is variable but within the usual range
for this sulfide (tables 7 and 8). At the Lincoln Memorial,
where they have weathered, sphalerite and pyrite are quite
noticeable compared to the surrounding white calcite. The
exposed sphalerite surfaces have a reddish-brown rusty
appearance (dark grain in fig. 13), the pyrite has a
golden-metallic appearance, and both of these inclusions are
raised compared to the surrounding calcite.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Results from a number of physical tests of the Colorado
Yule marble have been reported in the literature (table
9). Initially, tests were conducted on the marble as part of
the selection process for marbles submitted to the Lincoln
Memorial Commission (Stratton, 1913b; Bureau of Standards,
1914a). Additional tests were conducted on the Yule
marble after questions about its quality and durability were
raised when it was selected for use in the Lincoln Memorial
(Bureau of Standards, 1914b). Later, because of its purity
and homogeneous texture, the Yule marble was used in a
number of experiments, especially those conducted to
understand physical properties of rocks (Balsley, 1941;
Knopf, 1949; Griggs and Miller, 1951; Rosenholtz and
Smith, 1951).
For discussion, the physical tests conducted on the
Yule marble can be divided into three categories: general
physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and
weathering or durability characteristics. General physical
characteristics describe attributes of the marble including
the weight, hardness, specific gravity, porosity, absorption,
and coefficient of thermal expansion (table 9A). Strength
characteristics are determined by various loading tests that
are applied to the stone to see how well the stone withstands
applied forces (table 9B). Weathering or durability
characteristics are determined by tests conducted to assess
the long-term durability of the stone when it is exposed to
environmental conditions such as temperature changes and
pollutants (table 9C). Because the tests reported in table 9
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 17
were performed in slightly different manners (see notes in
the table), direct comparison of the test results is difficult.
However, the results do give a general picture of the stone’s
characteristics.
Of great interest in this study is how the Yule marble
compares with other marbles. A second important aspect is
whether the tests might have indicated a weakness that we
now see in the long-term durability of the marble. The Lincoln
Memorial Commission had the Bureau of Standards
perform a number of tests on the candidate stones (Bureau
of Standards, 1914a). Comparisons of physical properties of
dimension stone have also been reported in the literature
(Kessler, 1919; Griffith, 1937). Unfortunately, the Yule marble
was not among the 50 marbles tested by Kessler, and,
although Griffith included the Yule marble, he did not have
results for strength or durability tests of the Yule. To see
how the Yule compares with other marbles being quarried
and used in 1914, average physical measurements for the
Yule marble are compared in table 10 with measurements
for commercial marbles tested by Kessler (1919). Measurements
made on some of the chief competitors of the Yule,
marbles from Vermont, Georgia, and Alabama, are also
shown in table 10.
The general physical properties of the Yule marble are
similar to those of other marbles, but both the compressive
strength and the transverse strength of the Yule are lower
than those properties in most of the other marbles tested
(table 10). The low strength values on the Yule may arise
because the tests on the Yule did not specify whether they
were made with the grain or perpendicular to the grain of
the marble. Even allowing for the uncertainty of the grain
direction, the Yule appears to have lower strengths than
most other marbles. However, the strength values for the
Yule marble are not unreasonably low. For ordinary uses,
stone that has a compressive strength of 5,000 lb/in 2 is satisfactory
(Bowles, 1939). In its report to the Lincoln Memorial
Commission, the Bureau of Standards concluded that
none of the marbles tested for the commission were structurally
unsound (Bureau of Standards, 1914a). Kessler
(1919) pointed out that even though few stones have compressive
strengths that are too low, other factors in a structure,
such as uneven loads, expansion of water in pores
during freezing, and vibrations, may reduce the strength of
the stone. The strength values of the Yule marble are likely
to be significant to the Lincoln Memorial only if they influence
the durability of the marble.
Several tests by the Bureau of Standards (1914a) and
by Merrill (1915) manipulated samples of marble to determine
if a prediction might be made about the durability of
the marble. In these tests, loss of strength was evaluated
after the marble was subjected to cycles of freezing, depth
of penetration of a staining solution was estimated, and
weight loss was measured after the marble was suspended in
an acid solution for an extended period (table 9C). Compared
with the other marbles tested, the Yule showed a

18 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 13. Sphalerite inclusion (dark grain) at the Lincoln Memorial occurs as an isolated grain
with a rusty-brown surface. On weathered surfaces, sphalerite stands higher than the surrounding
calcite.
Table 9. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of the Colorado Yule marble.
[Dashes (---) indicate no data available]
A. General Physical Characteristics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Weight (lb/ft3 ) ----------------------- 168.7 170 --- --- --- --- --- 169.2
Hardness (Shore number)---------- 38.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Specific gravity---------------------- --- --- 2.711 --- --- --- --- 2.714
True specific gravity ---------- 2.72 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Apparent specific gravity ---- 2.70 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Porosity (percent) ------------------- * --- --- 0.15 --- --- --- ---
Absorption (percent) --------------- 0.19 0.103 0.067 --- 0.061 0.072 0.13 0.16
Coefficient of thermal expansion - 38 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
SOURCE OF DATA
1. Griffith (1937, table 1, p. 12): * Griffith reported pores = 0.45 percent and solids = 99.5 percent. The coefficient of thermal expansion was determined
from room temperature to 212°F on a sample 1/2 inch square by 4 inches long.
2. Bureau of Standards (1914a): Weight was given in description of samples, p. 2. Absorption was measured on 2-inch-square pieces cut from the sample
slabs; the value above is the average of eight total test results; the range of values was 0.086 to 0.123 percent. For comparison, absorption values are presented
as percentages; referenced source reported them as a ratio (for example, 0.00103).
3. Merrill (1914, p. 16): Specific gravity test information was provided with analysis of sample made by A.W. Smith, Case School of Applied Science,
Cleveland, Ohio, October 22, 1907. Absorption tests are reported from Bureau of Standards test No. 14234 dated November 3, 1913; the value above is
the average of results of three tests on 3-inch cubes; the range of absorption ratios was 0.00061 to 0.00076. For comparison, absorption values are presented
as percentages; referenced source reported them as a ratio (for example, 0.00103).
4. Knopf (1949, p. 440): No information was provided about how porosity data were obtained.
5. Stratton (1913b): The absorption ratio was obtained by the Bureau of Standards on five samples by using 3-inch cubes. Ratio range of 0.00061 to
0.00076 was reported, but no other values or average was reported.
6. Stratton (1913a, includes Bureau of Standards certificate for Colorado Yule marble, Test No. 14374, November 11, 1913): Absorption tests on 3-inch
cubes yielded ratios of 0.00072 and 0.00075.
7. Vanderwilt (1937, p. 162): In addition to showing data that were published elsewhere (for example, Merrill, 1914), Vanderwilt reported the average
result from absorption tests made on three polished 2-inch cubes.
8. Colorado Yule Marble Company (1996): The information sheet states that all tests were performed to American Standards of Tests and Measurements
[sic] criteria.

MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 19
Table 9. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of the Colorado Yule marble—Continued.
B. Strength Characteristics
[In the literature cited below, different terms are used for some of the tests. These include the following: crushing strength = ultimate strength, compressive
strength; modulus of rupture = transverse test, cross-breaking test; modulus of elasticity = Young’s modulus]
1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8
Crushing strength (lb/in 2 ) ---- 6,694 10,195 6,760 10,735 4,220 8,000 7,550 9,785 7,600 14,847
Modulus of rupture (lb/in 2 ) --
Modulus of elasticity (multiply
each result by 10
--- 1,030 --- --- --- --- 1,244 --- 1,200 1,374
5 ; units are
in footnotes)---------------- --- --- 86.7a 56.4a 4.01b 3.84b --- --- --- ---
a
Modulus of elasticity values in columns 3a and 3b are in pounds per square inch (lb/in2 ), as reported by Lepper (1949).
b 2 5
Modulus of elasticity values in columns 4a and 4b are in kilograms per square centimeter (kg/cm ), as reported by Knopf (1949). A conversion indicates that 4.01×10 kg/
cm2 ~ 57×105 lb/in2 and that 3.84×105 kg/cm2 ~ 55×105 lb/in2 .
SOURCE OF DATA
1. Stratton (1913b): The above value is the average of results obtained by the Bureau of Standards for “ultimate strength” of two samples (6,256 and 7,133 lb/in 2 ); tests were
made on 3-inch cubes.
2. Merrill (1914, table on p. 16): Compression test and cross-breaking test data were supplied by Milo S. Ketcham, C.E., Dean, University of Colorado. Four samples were
tested in each test. Compression (crushing strength) was measured on 2-inch cubes; the range of values was 9,630 to 10,990 lb/in 2 . Cross-breaking strength (modulus of rupture)
was measured on samples 6×2×2 inches; the range of values was 970 to 1,100 lb/in 2 .
3. Lepper (1949, p. 573): Tests were made on four samples 1×1×2 inches. Results shown are averages for two types of measurements: a–Load applied parallel to the grain of
the marble (crushing strength = 5,810 and 7,710 lb/in 2 ; modulus of elasticity = 83.4×10 5 and 90.0×10 5 lb/in 2 ); b–Load applied perpendicular to the grain of the marble (crushing
strength = 11,120 and 10,350 lb/in 2 ; modulus of elasticity = 54.2×10 5 and 58.5×10 5 lb/in 2 ). Grain is the plane of easiest splitting; the grain direction coincides with the
longest axis of ellipsoidal calcite grains in the marble.
4. Knopf (1949, p. 440–441): Data were reported from other sources, but no published references were given. Crushing strength: a–From Griggs and Bell on a cylinder
1 inch×1/2 inch with length parallel to the grain of the calcite; b–Quote from Bain, “in a direction normal to the ‘grain’ the strength could be 8000 psi [lb/in 2 ].” Modulus of
elasticity (Young's modulus) results were quoted from Bain data with no information about sample size: a–Force parallel to veining; b–Force perpendicular to veining.
5. Bureau of Standards (1914a): Twelve samples were measured in the tests; average measurements are shown above. Crushing tests were made on 2-inch-square pieces cut
from the slabs (height approximately 0.9 inch); the range of values was 6,887 to 7,893 lb/in 2 . Modulus of rupture tests (transverse tests) were made on 12 samples,
14×2 inches, cut from the slabs, with a span of 10 inches in the tests; the range of values was 1,130 to 1,350 lb/in 2 .
6. Bureau of Standards (1914b): Load was measured on the bed faces of eight 9-inch cubes; three cubes were polished, and five were unpolished. The range of values obtained
was 8,557 to 10,842 lb/in 2 ; there is no particular correlation between strength and whether the sample was polished.
7. Vanderwilt (1937, p. 161): Vanderwilt cited data supplied by the National Bureau of Standards in connection with the Lincoln Memorial from a letter to G.F. Loughlin (U.S.
Geological Survey) dated May 26, 1936. Crushing tests (compressive strength tests) were made on pieces 2×2×7/8 inch (load applied to 2-inch-square faces); reported value
is average of 12 test results. Modulus of rupture tests were made on pieces 12×2×7/8 inch; the reported value is the average of four test results.
8. Colorado Yule Marble Company (1996): The information sheet states that all tests were performed to American Standards of Tests and Measurements [sic] criteria.
C. Durability Characteristics
Loss of Crushing Strength after Freezing (Bureau of Standards, 1914a):
Two-inch-square samples from test slabs were treated, and crushing strengths before and after treatment were compared. Treatment: alternate freezing
(16 hr) and boiling (8 hr) for 9 successive days. Twelve samples were tested, and average loss of strength in crushing tests was 10.9 percent.
Stain Penetration (Bureau of Standards 1914a):
Four samples, about 1 inch square by 2 inches high, were dried, coated with paraffin 1/2 inch above the base, and placed in a dish with a highly colored
aqueous solution of eosin, about 1/8 inch deep. After 7 days, an estimate was made of how high the stain had risen in the four samples. Out of 12 samples,
the 4 Yule marble samples were rated as 4, 7, 8, and 10 on a scale where 12 was the greatest penetration and 1 the least. A value for the four Yule
marble samples tested was reported as 1.25 inches.
Weight Loss in Carbonic Acid (Merrill, 1915):
One-inch cubes of marble with smoothed (but not polished) sides were suspended by threads in water kept acid by a carbonic acid stream. Some samples
were weighed after 70 days, and other samples were weighed after 3 months. For the two time periods, the Yule marble samples experienced
0.0097 and 0.019 percent weight loss, respectively. The average weight loss for all marbles tested was 0.0083 and 0.0142 percent for the two time
periods.
Thermal Expansion (Rosenholtz and Smith, 1949):
Thermal expansion of three orientations of samples was measured from 20°C to 700°C. The elongation determined for each type of sample is given
below:
Orientation Elongation (percent)
Parallel maximum concentration of c-axes of calcite (E-W) --------------------------------------------------- 1.02
Perpendicular maximum concentration of c-axes of calcite (N-S)--------------------------------------------- .50
Perpendicular maximum concentration of c-axes of calcite (vertical)----------------------------------------- .71

20 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Table 10. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of commercial marbles tested by
Kessler (1919) compared with average values for the Colorado Yule marble (from table 9) and with data for five marbles tested for the
Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a).
[Min=minimum; Max=maximum; Avg=average calculated for this report. Dashes indicate no data available]
Marble
Weight
(lb/ft 3)
greater loss in strength, about the same amount of stain penetration,
and slightly greater weight loss after exposure to
carbonic acid (tables 10 and 9C). None of the marbles submitted
to the Lincoln Memorial Commission varies significantly
from the others in the test results.
SELECTION OF THE YULE MARBLE FOR
THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
The selection of a white marble to be used for the exterior
of the Lincoln Memorial was a competitive process.
Companies submitted samples of marble and bids to the
Lincoln Memorial Commission, which was charged with
making a selection. Five marbles were submitted for consideration
for the exterior of the memorial (Bacon, 1913):
Cherokee marble from Georgia, Dorset White marble from
Specific gravity Porosity
Apparent True (percent)
Ranges and averages calculated from data given by Kessler (1919)
Absorption
(weight percent)
Entire set of 50 marbles Min 165.2 2.643 2.718 0.40 0.016
Max 178.9 2.863 2.879 2.09 .452
Avg 171.3 2.740 2.760 .61 .113
Vermont marbles-------- Min 168.8 2.700 2.721 .40 .030
Max 177.7 2.844 2.739 .77 .201
Avg 170.7 2.731 2.727 .51 .119
Georgia marbles -------- Min 169.1 2.705 2.722 .40 .085
Max 170.4 2.726 2.742 .84 .131
Avg 169.8 2.716 2.731 .54 .104
Alabama marbles ------- Min 169.9 2.718 2.732 .44 .059
Max 170.1 2.721 2.733 .51 .079
Avg 170.0 2.720 2.733 .48 .069
Individual values from Kessler (1919)
Dorset, Vt------------------- 169.2 2.708 -- -- 0.134
Etowah, Ga ----------------- 170.4 2.726 2.737 0.40 .095
Amicalola, Ga-------------- 169.9 2.719 2.742 .84 .085
Alabama -------------------- 170.1 2.721 2.733 .44 .059
Data averaged from table 9
Yule-------------------------- 169 2.71 -- 0.45* 0.104
Marbles tested for the Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a)
East Dorset, Vt------------- -- -- -- -- 0.103
Tate, Ga --------------------- -- -- -- -- .107
Amicalola, Ga-------------- -- -- -- -- .102
Alabama -------------------- -- -- -- -- .093
Yule-------------------------- -- -- -- -- .103
Vermont, Southern marble from Georgia, Amicalola marble
from Georgia, and Colorado Yule marble from Colorado.
However, Henry Bacon, the architect of the memorial,
thought only three were worthy of consideration, and he
preferred the Colorado Yule because it was “immeasurably
superior” to the other marbles (Bacon, 1913).
In 1913, the Colorado Yule marble was relatively
unknown because the quarry had only recently opened and,
in contrast to the marbles from Georgia and Vermont, the
Yule had been used in only a few buildings. Objections to
the selection of the Colorado Yule marble for the Lincoln
Memorial centered on three main issues: (1) whether the
relatively new (and remote) quarry would be able to provide
the quality and quantity of stone that would be required; (2)
whether the marble was sound and acceptable for exterior
use; and (3) whether this relatively unknown marble was as
durable as other, better known marbles. Copies of letters

SELECTION OF THE YULE MARBLE FOR THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL 21
Table 10. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of commercial marbles tested by
Kessler (1919) compared with average values for the Colorado Yule marble (from table 9) and with data for five marbles tested for the
Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a)—Continued.
Marble
Entire set of 50 marbles
----------
*From Griffith (1937); similar (derived same way?) to porosity values of Kessler (1919).
from customers who had used the Yule marble were sent to
members of the Lincoln Memorial Commission by the Colorado
Yule Marble Company to show that the company had
provided quality stone in a timely fashion (Manning,
1913b). A statement about the marble’s purity, from a Denver
chemical laboratory and assay office, was also submitted
to the commission to attest that the marble was likely to
resist discoloration or disintegration from weathering (Von
Schultz and Low, 1907; Manning, 1913a).
Because of reports of cracks (rifts) in two buildings
where the Yule marble had been used in exterior work, in
the Cheesman Memorial and the Post Office in Denver (The
Financial World, 1913), a large portion of the testimony in a
hearing held by the Lincoln Memorial Commission focused
on the issue of the integrity of the marble (Lincoln Memorial
Commission, 1913). To address concerns about the Yule
Compressive
strength (lb/in2) Transverse strength (lb/in2) Change in compressive
strength after freezing
(percent)
On bed On edge
Perpendicular
to grain
Parallel to
grain On bed On edge
Ranges and averages calculated from data given by Kessler (1919)
Stain
penetration
(inches)
Min 9,058 7,850 322 607 -- -- --
Max 50,205 44,470 4,948 3,670 -- -- --
Avg 16,663 15,418 2,186 1,666 –6.1 –6.4 --
Vermont marbles ------ Min 9,058 7,850 322 618 -- -- --
Max 50,205 44,470 2,719 1,858 -- -- --
Avg 15,763 14,891 1,730 1,360 –11.3 –12.7 --
Georgia marbles------- Min 10,144 9,244 1,266 624 -- -- --
Max 11,945 11,908 1,596 1,346 -- -- --
Avg 11,123 10,295 1,455 1,106 –6.4 –14.2 --
Alabama marbles ----- Min 14,744 11,456 2,170 1,740 -- -- --
Max 17,787 11,515 3,442 1,740 -- -- --
Avg 16,266 11,486 2,806 1,740 7.25 29.95 --
Individual values from Kessler (1919)
Dorset, Vt ----------- 9,245 7,850 1,642 934 –5.6 –9.5 --
Etowah, Ga --------- 11,545 10,194 1,520 1,226 –10.6 –15.2 --
Amicalola, Ga ------ 11,012 9,922 1,596 990 23.6 –13.4 --
Alabama------------- 17,787 11,515 3,442 1,740 –5.3 16 --
Data averaged from table 9
Yule ------------------ 7,950 -- 1,200 -- –10.9 -- 1.25
Marbles tested for the Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a)
East Dorset, Vt ----- 10,187 -- 1,436 -- –5 -- 1.25
Tate, Ga ------------- 11,296 -- 1,179 -- –11.6 -- 1.85
Amicalola, Ga ------ 8,801 -- 1,419 -- –8.3 -- 1.2
Alabama------------- 11,882 -- 2,040? -- 0 -- .6
Yule ------------------ 7,550 -- 1,244 -- –10.9 -- 1.2
marble, a geologist, George P. Merrill, was sent by Colonel
W.W. Harts (Engineer Officer in charge of Public Grounds,
overseer of the Lincoln Memorial project) to the quarry in
Colorado to examine the stone and assess whether the
quarry would be able to produce the quality and quantity of
marble needed for the project. Merrill reported to Colonel
Harts that the quarry “can be made to yield stone of good
quality of the desired size and in quantity” (Merrill,
1913a,c). Merrill also stated that the chief defect, small rifts,
was limited to certain beds and “can be averted if inspection
is sufficiently severe” (Merrill, 1913b,c).
After consideration of the testimony and review of
Merrill’s report, the Lincoln Memorial Commission recommended
that the Yule marble be used for the memorial
(Vale, 1913). However, because of controversy about the
choice, the selection of the Yule marble for the Lincoln

22 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Memorial was not finalized for several months (Vale,
1914b; McCollum, 1993). Secretary of War Lindsley Garrison,
the authorizing official, delayed announcing that a contract
would be made until he had heard additional testimony
regarding the proposed marble selection, received testing
results from the Bureau of Standards, and received a recommendation
on the marble selection from the Fine Arts Commission
(French, 1914; Redfield, 1914; Vale, 1914a;
McCollum, 1993). An integral part of the decision to use the
Yule marble was the requirement that all of the marble was
to be carefully inspected before it was accepted for installation
in the memorial (Lincoln Memorial Commission, 1913;
Taft, 1913).
COLORADO YULE MARBLE IN THE
LINCOLN MEMORIAL
The Colorado Yule marble was used for all of the exterior
marble at the Lincoln Memorial. Many of the marble
blocks were quite large. For example, the column drums
were cut from blocks of marble that weighed 35 tons each
(Kirsch, 1915), and there are 12 drums in each column of
the memorial. All of the marble used in the memorial was
fabricated and carved in Marble, Colo., before it was
shipped to the Lincoln Memorial. The marble pieces were
inspected at the quarry by a superintendent of the Yule Marble
Company to make sure that all the stones that were
shipped conformed to the specifications (Baird, 1914a).
Although the government would not inspect the pieces at
the quarry prior to shipping (Harts, 1914a,b), when the marble
pieces arrived at the Lincoln Memorial, a government
representative inspected the pieces as they were uncrated
and put into storage (Baird, 1914b). At the beginning of the
project, Colonel Harts (1914a) listed six general criteria that
could cause rejection of a stone: (1) failure to meet color or
veining requirements; (2) flaws that would result in structural
weakness or defect of appearance; (3) repairs, patches,
or concealment of defects; (4) improper quarrying so the
stone does not lie on natural quarry beds; (5) improper
matching of adjacent stones, so that appearance is affected;
and (6) incorrect dimensions.
The high standards set for the quality of the marble and
the large quantity of stone required for the Lincoln Memorial
project were a challenge for the Colorado Yule Marble
Company. Even at the start of the job, the company was
aware of the very high standards that Harts and Manning
were setting for the stone to be used in the memorial. In
June 1914, Manning (Colorado Yule Marble Company)
wrote that he was setting a standard for the marble that “will
require us to take out of our quarries about 80,000 cubic feet
of stock a month in order to ship 12,000 to 15,000 feet of
finished material on the Lincoln Memorial job” (Manning,
1914). When some of the stones shipped to Washington
were rejected, the George Fuller Company wrote to Colonel
Harts about the difficulty of obtaining perfect stones of such
large sizes, stating “... it is practically impossible to get marble,
especially in large sizes, that does not show any seams”
(Baird, 1914d). Harts reminded the Fuller Company that
stones were rejected only if they did not meet the contract
specifications (Harts, 1914d). Harts also later reiterated his
position that “... the contract does not specify that the marble
furnished shall be the best which any particular quarry
may be capable of producing, but that it shall be equal to a
certain standard established before the contract was entered
into” (Harts, 1915).
Many stones were rejected at the quarry. Sometimes
less than 10 percent of the stone that was quarried was
shipped to the Lincoln Memorial job site (Manning, 1915a).
Manning also wrote (1915a) that the Colorado Yule Marble
Company had quarried six times for cheek pieces and was
able to ship only four out of six pieces. Apparently, Manning
felt that some of this high rejection rate was unnecessary
because of the very high standards that were set. He
wrote to Baird “... we are throwing out many blocks which
should in my opinion go into the contract, but which would
be criticized if we shipped them” (Manning, 1915a). Even a
representative of the construction company reported back
from a visit to the quarry that “for every block that is
shipped four are thrown out” (Butler, 1915).
There were three main reasons for the difficulties
encountered and the high rejection rate of stones that were
quarried: the sizes required, the presence of flint (chert) layers
in the marble beds, and the nature of the flaws in the
marble. Many of the pieces required for the memorial were
large, particularly the column drums, the stylobate pieces,
and the architrave pieces. Their size meant that very large
blocks of good marble were needed. In addition, it was not
always possible to get all the large pieces from a particular
section of the quarry. Manning (1915a,b) reported quarrying
in several different areas for drum pieces and stylobate
pieces. Another difficulty posed by the sizes was that some
pieces, such as the stylobate blocks, required special dimensions,
and no other pieces could be cut from blocks that had
failed as sources of stylobate pieces (Manning, 1915a). Further
problems were encountered because in some areas of
the quarry, thick flint layers had to be removed to get to
good-quality marble (Butler, 1915). In addition, the quarrymen
encountered “... cutters and the blue coloring matter
which comes in spots here and there through the layers that
are absolutely statuary marble” (Manning, 1915a). Even
once the necessary sizes of quality marble were obtained,
the stone might be rejected. Cracks and seams in the marble
were the main reason for rejection of the stones. However,
many of the cracks were not visible until the stone was cut
and a smooth face had been put on it (Butler, 1915).
Despite attempts to inspect the stone in Colorado and
to find stones of the very best quality, some stones that were
shipped were rejected (app. B). The main problem encountered
in the stones was the presence of cracks, but other

problems mentioned in the inspections included excessive
veining, sand pockets, and surficial discoloration (Baird,
1914b,c; Harts, 1914c). Stones that had veining that
exceeded the veining in the samples originally submitted to
the Lincoln Memorial Commission were rejected (Baird,
1914b). In at least one case, a stone step with “considerable
blue” was accepted, but the Colorado Yule Marble Company
was warned that no other stones with that much blue
would be accepted in the future (Baird, 1914c). While some
stones were rejected, others were conditionally accepted or
modified and used even though they contained minor flaws
(app. B). The inspection team decided that stones with open
seams on exposed faces would be rejected, as would stones
where the seams might cause a spall that would affect the
appearance of the stone (Harts, 1914c). However, a stone
with a seam was considered acceptable if the seam did not
extend to (or close to) the face of the stone. Some stones
with seams were conditionally accepted as long as the
seams did not increase in size or appear to be a more severe
defect before final completion of the building (Harts,
1914c). Attempts were also made to accommodate stones
with localized defects. Where it was possible, a stone with a
cracked end or corner might be cut and used if it was possible
to modify the lengths of surrounding stones or to adjust
the joint patterns (Baird, 1914c; Harts, 1914c). Manning’s
(1915a) correspondence from Colorado describes efforts
made by the Colorado Yule Marble Company to obtain
replacement stones for some of the rejected pieces.
Unfortunately, few records have been found that document
details of the construction of the superstructure of the
memorial. A fire destroyed the construction field office in
February 1917 (Warren-Findley, 1985), but it is not known
whether records of the construction were lost in the fire. The
last stones for the exterior of the Lincoln Memorial were
shipped from Marble, Colo., on June 8, 1916 (Vandenbusche
and Myers, 1991). The exterior marble work on the
memorial was completed in February 1917, and the memorial
was dedicated on May 30, 1922 (Warren-Findley, 1985).
The beauty of the memorial was praised in reviews after its
dedication (Cram, 1923), although the marble in the memorial
was rarely singled out for comment (Thomas, 1993).
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE
One of the concerns that was raised about using the
Colorado Yule marble for the Lincoln Memorial was that no
one knew whether it would prove to be a durable stone. In
an effort to address that issue, prior to the selection of the
marble for the Lincoln Memorial, laboratory tests for durability
were performed by the Bureau of Standards on the
five marbles submitted for consideration by the Lincoln
Memorial Commission (table 10). The Bureau of Standards
(1914a) concluded that resistance of the marbles to weathering
would be best determined by a comparison of structures
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 23
made of the marbles. The other marbles that were proposed
for the memorial had been used in a number of buildings,
and so it was possible to anticipate how those marbles might
appear years after the memorial was built. However, when
the Lincoln Memorial was being built, the Yule marble was
a new and relatively unknown marble; few buildings had
used the Yule marble. Now, more than 70 years since its
construction, it is possible to examine the condition of the
Yule marble in the Lincoln Memorial and see how well it
has withstood the impact of weathering agents over time.
Stone on the exterior of buildings is exposed to the
weathering effects of wind, rain, temperature cycles, and
urban pollution. Although all stone weathers (or deteriorates)
because of chemical, physical, and biologic effects,
variations in the characteristics of the stone can influence
the degree or rate of deterioration. Marble is particularly
susceptible to deterioration in urban environments because
it is composed primarily of calcite, which dissolves in weak
acid. Sulfuric and nitric acids can form from the reaction
among water, oxygen, and urban air pollutants such as sulfur
dioxide and the nitrogen oxides. Typically, marble that is
exposed to weathering agents and urban pollutants is subject
to deterioration (Amoroso and Fassina, 1983; McGee,
1991). It loses sharp edges, details of carved features are
softened, and the surface of the marble develops a granular,
sugary texture because of dissolution along calcite grain
edges at the surface of the stone. In areas where the stone
surface is sheltered from rain and washing, marble may
develop a blackened surficial crust of gypsum alteration
plus dirt particles that disfigures the marble (Amoroso and
Fassina, 1983). Eventually the marble underneath the black
surficial crusts will disaggregate, and pieces of the stone
will be lost (Camuffo, Del Monte, and Sabbioni, 1983).
CONDITION OF THE MARBLE IN THE
LINCOLN MEMORIAL
The marble in the Lincoln Memorial has deterioration
features that are typical for marble used in buildings.
Although some cracks exist in the marble of the Lincoln
Memorial, few of the cracks resemble the “rifts” that were
of such concern in the Cheesman Memorial (The Financial
World, 1913; Bain, 1936a). On the upper areas of the Lincoln
Memorial on the penthouse walls and along the entablature,
in particular on the cheneau and antefixae, exposed
surfaces of the marble have a sugary texture, and some
stones show differential wear on the exposed surfaces,
where the marble surface has weathered unevenly (fig. 14).
Inclusions of quartz or feldspar, particularly in some of the
stones around the roof entablature, stand higher than the
surface of the calcite grains because they are more resistant
to weathering (fig. 12B). The column shafts also show a differential
weathering of inclusions or a localized pronounced

24 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 14. Differential wear on a cheneau piece along the roof at the Lincoln Memorial.
variation in stone quality, where there are chalky white areas
in the marble (fig. 15).
There are very few black surficial alteration crusts at
the Lincoln Memorial. This lack of crusts may be because
the ornamentation on the memorial is simple with classical
lines, so that most surfaces of the marble are washed by
rain, and there are few areas where the carving provides
recessed and sheltered surfaces in which surficial gypsum is
likely to accumulate. Gypsum accumulation might also be
slowed in many areas of the building because the National
Park Service regularly washes accessible surfaces of the
building. The main area where black crusts are visible at the
memorial is on the guttae, on the cornice underside of the
roof entablature. In this sheltered and relatively inaccessible
area, many of the encrusted guttae are crumbling and falling
apart (fig. 16).
Another characteristic surficial weathering feature on
some stones in the Lincoln Memorial is a slight yellowishorange
surficial discoloration that is most visible on some of
the antefixae and in the penthouse (fig. 17). Some of this
discoloration may be a natural “antiquing” that is fairly typical
of marbles, because as the calcite weathers, dirt adheres
to the roughened surface (Bain, 1936a). In areas where the
yellowish-orange discoloration is concentrated, bacteria
may be growing on or between the calcite grains below the
structure’s surface. Alternatively, some of the orange surfi-
cial discoloration may have developed during shipment to
the memorial site (app. B).
A detailed visual survey conducted at the memorial in
1991–92 documented the condition of the stones in the
memorial (Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994). When the
baseline condition information from the visual survey is
analyzed, it will be possible to describe the distribution and
amount of the deterioration features at the memorial. This
information will then be used in conjunction with an understanding
of deterioration processes to develop plans for
preservation and routine maintenance at the memorial.
One striking feature of the condition of the marble in
the Lincoln Memorial is that while some blocks of stone
appear to show little or no signs of deterioration at all, adjacent
blocks show mild to severe deterioration (figs. 17 and
18). Stones that have withstood weathering are clear white
and hard and retain crisp, well-defined edges on corners and
carved features. In contrast, stones that have weathered
poorly have pronounced surficial sugaring; they may show
surficial cracks and a slight surficial discoloration; and in
some cases, particularly where the stone has been carved,
they appear to be badly crumbling. The presence of inclusions
in a block of marble is not correlated with the degree
of deterioration of the stone. This contrast in overall stone
condition occurs in several places at the memorial but is
most noticeable along the roof entablature and on the penthouse
walls (figs. 2 and 17).

A puzzling aspect of this contrast in stone integrity is
that stones which have had identical exposure to weathering
agents show such a significant difference in durability.
Because the deteriorated stones occur on all sides of the
building, it appears that exposure to microclimatic effects
around the building is not an adequate explanation for the
variability in the stone surfaces. Similarly, because of the
distribution of the affected stones and because there are no
visible unique characteristics of the stones other than the
sugared surface, it seems unlikely that salts moving in the
stone or accumulating on the stone surface are the cause of
the variations.
Although tooling of stone surfaces may cause minor
variations in the stone that weaken the stone or make the
surface more susceptible to weathering (Alessandrini and
others, 1979), this seems an unlikely explanation for the
stones at the Lincoln Memorial. All of the stones at the Lincoln
Memorial were finished at the Yule fabricating facility
in Marble prior to shipping to the memorial. If finishing of
the stone caused the surficial variations, then the variations
would not be distributed randomly around the memorial.
Instead, the badly sugared surfaces would be restricted to
stones with specific types of carved features, or to stones
processed during a limited period of time when the usual
stone handling procedures were not followed. Although the
variable stones are most noticeable on the penthouse walls
and on the roof entablature, variations in the surface roughness
are found all over the building (Einhorn Yaffee and
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 25
Figure 15. Chalky white inclusion on a column shaft at the Lincoln Memorial.
Prescott, 1994) on many types of architectural features, and
it seems unlikely that a change in stone procedures at the
fabricating plant could have affected the stones in such a
random fashion. It seems more likely that the difference in
integrity arises from some characteristic feature of the
stone, which is probably an inherent feature of the marble.
VARIATIONS IN THE YULE MARBLE
One element of this study was to examine the characteristics
of the marble to see whether any specific characteristics
of the marble might correlate with its durability and its
tendency to stay intact. Because we did not want to take
samples from the Lincoln Memorial, the stone was examined
in situ on the building. Graded samples of the Yule
marble were obtained from the Colorado Yule Marble Company.
For comparison, a sample of disaggregated marble
was collected near the dump pile at the Yule quarry, and a
few broken pieces of marble that were found at the Lincoln
Memorial were also examined (table 2). The composition of
calcite in the various samples does not vary significantly
(tables 5 and 6) and does not correlate with grade or type of
sample. The type and composition of inclusions in the samples
also do not correlate with the type of sample (tables 7
and 8). So it seems that neither composition nor the presence
of inclusions explains the significant variation in durability
observed in the Yule marble.

26 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 16. Blackened surficial alteration crusts accumulate on the underside of the roof entablature at
the Lincoln Memorial. A, Black surficial alteration crusts accumulate in areas that are sheltered from
washing and rain. B, Detail of the guttae under the roof entablature showing that many are
disaggregating. A portion of black surficial alteration crust is still visible on the side of the crumbling
gutta near the center of the photograph. The rest of the blackened surface on these guttae fell off when
they were touched during examination of the area.

Grain size and shape have been identified as key factors
in stone durability (Dale, 1912). The calcite grains in a marble
interlock to form a network of crystals; therefore, the
grain boundaries in marble are likely to be weak points
where dissolution can occur (fig. 19). Dale (1912) suggested
that although fine-textured marbles present more surface
area for rain water to react with the calcite, a coarse-grained,
loose-textured marble may allow water to move more rapidly
along the grain boundaries and speed deterioration of the
marble. The width of the grain boundaries also influences
the rate of deterioration. If the openings are very small, water
cannot easily penetrate, but slightly wider openings allow
water to penetrate and dissolve the marble along the grain
edges. However, once the grain width boundary expands,
dissolution of the boundaries may be less effective in widening
the openings, and the weathering rate may decrease
(Bain, 1941). So as time passes, the effect of water penetration
in marble along grain boundaries will change.
Bain (1941) also observed that the width of grain openings
is not the only factor that influences marble durability.
Thin sections of marble examined with the optical microscope
show that smooth-grained marbles have distinct grain
boundaries compared to irregularly grained marbles (Bain,
1941). Bain (1936b) stated that deeply crenulated grain
boundaries may account for the weathering resistance of
some marbles because the spaces between grains must be
widened enough to free adjoining crystals (fig. 19). By measuring
the grains per square centimeter and the length of con-
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 27
Figure 17. Orange surficial discoloration on the penthouse at the Lincoln Memorial looks darker
gray in block at center of photograph. Note the difference in surficial integrity of the discolored stone
compared with the other stones. However, orange discoloration and surficial roughness are not
always correlated (see fig. 18).
Figure 18. Close examination of a column shaft at the Lincoln
Memorial shows a stone with a rough, sugared surface adjacent to
a stone that has retained a smooth, nearly new appearing surface
finish. The rough surface is not discolored.

28 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
tact of the grains (centimeter per square centimeter), Bain
(1936b, 1941) devised a coefficient of irregularity for marbles.
He defined the coefficient as the length of contact
between grains on a surface divided by the square root of
the number of grains exposed on that surface. He used the
coefficient to indicate which marbles might be more resistant
to weathering. According to Bain, the coefficient of
irregularity for marbles is typically 1.8, but it may range
from highly irregular (deeply crenulated) (2.1) to nearly
smooth boundaries (1.65).
Another factor that can influence the resistance of the
calcite grains to dissolution is orientation of the crystals.
Marble blocks cut so the exposed faces parallel the basal
face of the calcite crystals may be more weather resistant
because the basal faces of the calcite crystals are less soluble
than the prism edges (Bain, 1941).
Most features of the texture and crystal grains of the
Yule marble seem to indicate that it should be resistant to
weathering. The grains in samples examined in thin sections
appear to be tightly interlocked, they are fairly angular, and
there is a mixture of grain sizes in many areas of the samples
(fig. 4). Bain (1941) gave the coefficient of irregularity
for four Yule marble samples as 2.06, 2.00, 1.95, and 1.91.
All the values are above the typical value of 1.8, indicating
that the marble samples would be likely to be resistant to
weathering. In some samples of the Yule marble, the calcite
grains appear to be slightly elongated. One of the special
characteristics of the Yule marble is the preferred orientation
of the marble grains observed if the stone is cut in certain
directions (Knopf, 1941). This preferential orientation
A B
Calcite grains in marble are
irregularly shaped. They are
locked together like pieces of a
jigsaw puzzle.
C D
As water enters, the calcite grains
dissolve slightly, and the opening
between the grains widens.
Water penetrates into the marble
at the weakest place: along the
grain boundaries.
With time, as the openings widen,
the grain edges smooth, and the
grains become rounded. As the
surface grains become round, they
loosen and fall off the stone
surface.
Figure 19. Sketch of calcite grain boundaries in marble and
the progressive change that occurs along grain boundaries when
water penetrates into the marble. Arrows show the entry point
for water into the marble.
may also account for some of the weather resistance of
some of the blocks of marble in the Lincoln Memorial.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine what the
width and amount of crenulation of the calcite grain edges
were on the stones that have weathered poorly at the
Lincoln Memorial. The process of weathering widens the
openings between grains and smooths the grain boundaries
so that it is impossible to determine the original grain
characteristics. In two of the less intact samples of this
study, the thin sections from the antefix and from the
crumbling quarry sample, the textures are more uniform
than in the thin sections from the fresh, graded marble
samples. The grain sizes of the grades and types of Yule
marble samples in this study do not vary significantly (table
4), and the calcite grains in the graded samples have more
irregular shapes and a wider range of grain sizes in a
particular field of view compared with the antefix and
quarry samples. However, it is impossible to determine
whether the antefix and quarry samples were more
homogeneous or had more rounded grains than the typical
sample before they began to deteriorate.
Bain (1936a) and Vanderwilt (1937) both pointed out
that marble from the Yule quarry varies depending on the
part of the quarry that it is from. Bain (1936a) identified
three areas—the east side, the bench, and the west side—
that show distinct differences in integrity of the stone.
Vanderwilt (1937) described the east-side marble as a relatively
coarser grained, soft stone, with a high ratio of
absorption (has a tendency to absorb moisture). He stated
that the marble from the east side is not suitable for exterior
work because it crumbles readily, and the polished surfaces
lose their smoothness after a few years of exposure. After
the Yule quarry was reopened in 1990, the company found
that marble from the east section of the quarry was softer
than marble from other areas of the quarry (Reis, 1994). In
contrast, the marble from other portions of the quarry
appears sound. Bain (1936a) described the west-side marble
as very well preserved; the bench marble is intermediate in
quality.
Because of the nature of this marble deposit, it seems
entirely possible that there might be variations in the characteristics
of this marble, depending on its location in the
quarry. The deposit was formed from contact metamorphism,
meaning that a local rather than a regional heat
source caused the original limestone to recrystallize to form
marble. Thus, the amount and degree of metamorphism
within the marble body might have varied across the deposit
depending on its proximity to the granite intrusion (the heat
source) that caused the stone to recrystallize. Grain size,
degree of recrystallization of the calcite, and types of inclusions
other than the calcite that are present in the marble are
features that vary with the amount of heat and pressure that
the marble experienced during metamorphism. Vanderwilt
(1937) and Bain (1936a) both reported that there are grain
size variations in the marble body and that the marble that is

in direct contact with the granite is very coarse grained.
Both reports also describe inclusions, such as bodies of
“lime,” some garnet, and dolomite, that are present in some
areas of the marble body but absent from others.
It seems quite likely that some of the variation in deterioration
of the stones at the Lincoln Memorial may be
because the stones were taken from different parts of the
quarry. Merrill (1914) and Vanderwilt (1937) both reported
that, at the Yule quarry, impurities and variations in quality
were encountered along joints in the stone. Butler's correspondence
(1915) from the quarry indicates that several
fairly thick layers of flint and lime were removed in order to
obtain pieces for the Lincoln Memorial. To supply large
blocks that met the sample standards and to replace stones
that failed in cutting or were rejected at final inspection,
several different areas of the quarry were used (Manning,
1915a,b). Unfortunately, we do not know where specific
stones came from in the quarry. However, some of the distinctive
features of the marble are present only in some
areas of the memorial, suggesting that certain characteristics
were typical of the areas used for that particular stone size.
For example, a number of the column drums have broad flat
areas that appear as chalky white inclusions (fig. 15). This
particular feature is not seen on any of the other areas of the
building, such as walls, steps, and cheneau. In addition,
some location information can be interpreted by considering
the sizes of the stones and comments in the fragments of
remaining correspondence (app. B).
Because the stones were all inspected prior to acceptance,
one would anticipate that there should be little variation
in the quality and characteristics of the marble in the
Lincoln Memorial. However, the primary focus of the
inspections was to find stones that fell within the established
standards for veining and to reject stones with cracks or
seams that might become cracks (Harts, 1914a; Baird,
1914b). The stones that now show significant differences in
deterioration at the Lincoln Memorial most likely would
have met the inspection criteria, because most do not contain
significant inclusions; cracks in these stones are rare.
The primary characteristic of the more deteriorated stones is
extreme sugaring of the surface and pronounced rounding of
edges and carved features. It is possible that even though the
stones were carefully inspected, features that might have
indicated that some stones would tend to sugar more than
others may have been overlooked because that was not of
primary concern in the inspections. Alternatively, it may
have been difficult to identify these stones when the memorial
was being built because the features that would indicate
future extreme sugaring may have been too subtle to see
before significant stone exposure occurred.
If variations in the integrity of the Yule marble are a
typical feature of the marble, then it is likely that they would
have appeared in other buildings. However, once the variable
stone integrity was recognized at the Lincoln Memorial,
and if a characteristic that caused the variable integrity
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 29
was identified and could be avoided, then younger buildings
should show more uniform deterioration than the Lincoln
Memorial. By examining buildings with exterior Yule marble,
it may be possible to determine whether variable durability
is a common feature. It may also help to determine
whether the problem was restricted to stone quarried at a
specific time or from a specific part of the quarry.
CONDITION OF YULE MARBLE IN
OTHER BUILDINGS
In contrast to the situation faced by the Lincoln Memorial
Commission, it is now possible to examine the general
deterioration features of the Yule marble in a number of
buildings of varied ages. The Lincoln Memorial is probably
the most prominent building, nationwide, in which the Colorado
Yule marble was used. However, between 1905 and
1940, the Colorado Yule was used on the exterior and interior
of many important buildings and monuments built
throughout the United States (fig. 20; table 11), and it has
also been used nationally and internationally for many small
jobs such as private grave markers. Extensive lists of structures
that used the stone are provided by several authors
(Vanderwilt, 1937; Holmes, 1991; Vandenbusche and
Myers, 1991; McCollum, 1993); however, some of these
buildings have changed names or have been taken down.
Some specific examples of structures that use the Yule marble
are given in table 11. The conditions of buildings built
about the same time as the Lincoln Memorial are of particular
interest because some of the stone quarried in 1914–16
that could not be used for the Lincoln Memorial was used in
other, smaller jobs (Manning, 1915a,b).
Six buildings in Denver have Colorado Yule marble on
the exterior (table 12), and, with the exception of the Cheesman
Memorial, they are all located in downtown Denver.
The Cheesman Memorial is close to the downtown area, but
it is in a park on a small hill; it is also the oldest building
(1908) using the Yule stone. The construction dates for the
buildings in Denver reflect the history of the Yule quarry
(app. C), as most were built in two time periods: 1914–16
and 1930–36 (table 12). One advantage of examining several
buildings in the same city is that climate influences on
the buildings should be similar, so variations in deterioration
in the buildings are likely to reflect differences in age of the
buildings and variability of the stone.
In 1993, I visited Denver to examine some of the buildings
that have Yule marble on the exterior. The main purpose
of the visit was to gather an overall impression of the
condition of the marble in the Denver buildings so as to
make comparisons with the condition of the marble in the
Lincoln Memorial. Another goal was to see if the variations
in the marble and in the inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial
appear to be typical of the Yule marble in other structures.

30
Table 11.
COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 20. Locations in the United States where the Colorado Yule marble has been used for
notable buildings and major structures.
Notable examples of structures that used the Colorado Yule marble.
[Sources that list buildings using Yule marble: Vanderwilt, 1937; Holmes, 1991; Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991; McCollum, 1993;
Murphy, 1993. ---, no date information]
Building Location
Date
completed
Marble
position
Colorado State Capitol Building---- Denver, Colo--------------------------- 1895 Interior
Cheesman Memorial------------------ Denver, Colo--------------------------- 1908 Exterior
Cuyahoga County Court House----- Cleveland, Ohio ----------------------- 1912 Interior
U.S. Post Office1-----------------------
Denver, Colo--------------------------- 1914 Exterior
Colorado State Museum Building2--
Denver, Colo--------------------------- 1916 Exterior
Lincoln Memorial--------------------- Washington, D.C ---------------------- 1916 Exterior
First National Bank------------------- Portland, Oreg ------------------------- 1916 Exterior
U.S. Customs Building--------------- Denver, Colo--------------------------- 1931 Both
Tomb of the Unknowns--------------- Arlington National Cemetery, Va--- 1931 Exterior
Merritt Building----------------------- Los Angeles, Calif--------------------- ---- Both
Providence County Courthouse----- Providence, R.I ------------------------ ---- Interior
1 Now houses Federal courtrooms.
Table 12.
Buildings in Denver, Colo., with exterior Colorado Yule marble.
[Dates from Vanderwilt (1937) or from cornerstones]
2 Now houses the State administration.
Building Address
Date
completed
Cheesman Memorial-------------------------------------------------------------- Cheesman Park---------- 1908
U.S. Post Office (now houses Federal courtrooms)--------------------------- 18th & Stout Street ----- 1914
Colorado National Bank---------------------------------------------------------- 730 17th Street---------- 1914
Colorado State Museum Building (now houses the State administration)- 200 E. 14th Avenue----- 1916
U.S. Customs Building ----------------------------------------------------------- 19th & Stout Streets---- 1931
State Capitol Annex (now houses State Department of Resources; Capitol
Complex Facilities)---------------------------------------------------- 14th & Sherman--------- 1930’s

The general condition of the Yule marble in the
buildings in Denver is very similar to the condition of the
marble at the Lincoln Memorial. When buildings made of
Yule marble are viewed as a whole, they appear in good
condition, and the stone is white and unblemished (figs. 1
and 21). Even from a close view, the marble is clear and
nearly white, and the edges and surfaces appear to retain
much of their original crispness. The inclusions are
relatively subtle and show no appreciable difference in their
weathering compared to the rest of the stone. There is little
surficial blackening of the stone. However, I have no
information about the cleaning or maintenance of the
buildings in Denver.
At the time of my examination, the Denver Post Office
building was undergoing a major renovation; it had been
cleaned with a high-pressure water spray that had removed
all or most of any blackened surficial crusts (fig. 22). It
appears that the slight orange discoloration seen in some
stones at the Lincoln Memorial may be typical of the Yule
marble because some of the stones in the Denver buildings
also have a similar orange discoloration. A pronounced reddish-orange
stain at the Denver Post Office apparently
resisted poultice treatments during the cleaning of that
building (conversation with one of the workers at the site)
(fig. 23).
Close examination of some of the stones in various
buildings shows that their condition is similar to the condition
of the marble at the Lincoln Memorial. There are variations
in the surface textures of adjacent stones in several of
these buildings (fig. 24), similar to that seen at the Lincoln
Memorial. However, the effect is most noticeable at the
Cheesman Memorial, where stones that retain crisp tooling
marks are adjacent to stones with very sugared surfaces (fig.
25). Some of the stones in the buildings have slightly grayed
“chert” inclusions like some of the stones at the Lincoln
Memorial, but they are relatively uncommon. However, I
did not see any of the shallow chalky white inclusion areas
like those on the columns at the Lincoln Memorial. This
observation suggests that those inclusions were restricted to
the area of the quarry used for the column drums, and they
could not be completely avoided when the drums were quarried
because of the large sizes needed for those stones. Few
(if any) of the stones in the Denver buildings are as large as
many of the stones in the Lincoln Memorial. The “rifts” or
surficial cracks in the Cheesman Memorial, of such concern
during the hearing of the Lincoln Memorial Commission,
are still visible on many of the stones in the Cheesman
Memorial (fig. 26). However, I did not see this type of crack
on any other building. It seems likely, as Manning implied
at the hearing (Lincoln Memorial Commission, 1913), that
this feature was present only in some of the top layers of the
marble. It is also likely that inspections of the stone on subsequent
projects successfully avoided this problem.
Overall, there are no significant differences in the condition
of the marble in buildings of the two age groups
SUMMARY 31
(circa 1914 and circa 1930) or in the climate settings of
Washington, D.C., and Denver. Some blocks of marble seen
closeup have weathered so they are no longer pure white,
but their discoloration seems reasonable for the “antiquing
of marble” that might be expected on an older building.
Inclusions are present in the marble but are not particularly
noticeable on the buildings unless close inspection is made.
Most significantly, visible variations in surface sugaring of
the marble are present in all of the buildings examined.
However, the variations are noticeable mostly only upon
close examination; the sugaring and softening of the surface
is not particularly visible from a distance of more than 10 ft.
Differences in climate, particularly cycles of moisture and
temperature that the marble experiences in Washington,
D.C., have not had a significant effect on the weathering of
the Yule marble. There are no marked differences in the
general state of the marble in buildings in the two cities.
Similarly, there is no significant difference in the weathering
of the marble in the Denver buildings of different ages;
thus, a 10- to 20-year difference in length of exposure, independent
of climate, does not appear to correlate with specific
deterioration of the marble.
SUMMARY
Ever since its discovery, the Colorado Yule marble has
been praised for its quality and appearance. It was selected
for the Lincoln Memorial specifically because of its aesthetic
attributes and the quality that it would bring to the
memorial. Although there have been concerns about variations
in the marble and about the long-term durability of the
marble, overall, the early praise for the quality of the marble
was well founded.
The marble is nearly pure calcite. The irregularly
shaped calcite grains are equidimensional to slightly elongate,
and while they range in size, most have diameters of
between 100 and 600 micrometers. Physical tests of the
Yule marble do not show any significant weaknesses; the
results for the Yule marble are similar to typical results for
other marbles. As a natural material, the marble is heterogeneous.
It contains inclusions of quartz, mica, and feldspar,
but the inclusions are present only in minor amounts and
they are unevenly distributed. The predominant inclusion is
mica, which occurs as thin traces and does not weather significantly
differently from the rest of the marble. In a few
older buildings where the Yule marble is used on the exterior,
large inclusions of quartz or feldspar have weathered to
form noticeable, slightly gray, more resistant features that
stand out compared to the surrounding marble. However,
specific defects such as quartz inclusions and surficial
cracks in the marble are not present in more recent buildings;
apparently the defects were avoided once they were
recognized in early buildings that used the Yule marble.

32 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 21. Structures with exterior Colorado
Yule marble generally appear to be in very good
condition. A, Cheesman Memorial, Denver,
Colo. (built 1908). B, Colorado State Museum,
Denver, Colo. (built 1916). C, Tomb of the
Unknowns, Arlington, Va. (1931).

SUMMARY 33
Figure 22. Cleaning at Denver Post Office in 1993. The workers had not yet removed the
blackened surficial discoloration on the sides of the three column capitals on the left side of the
photograph.
Figure 23. Reddish-orange stain at Denver Post Office (dark area at center of photograph) after
several cleaning attempts in 1993.

34 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Figure 24. At the State Capitol Annex Building in Denver, there are variations in surficial integrity
in some blocks of marble. A, The State Capitol Annex Building (built in 1930’s). B, Some blocks
have a very rough sugared surface, whereas adjacent stones retain a smooth, finished surface.
Photograph is a detail of the 5th and 6th course from the ground, near the right front corner of the
building.

SUMMARY 35
Figure 25. Detail at the Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo. Three column drums retain original
tooling marks, but a fourth stone has a rough sugared surface with no trace of the original finish.
The mortar layer is approximately 7 mm thick.
Figure 26. Rifts or surficial cracks in the marble at the Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo.

36 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
With time and exposure, the Yule marble remains
remarkably white and solid. Buildings of Yule marble and
many blocks of marble in three Colorado areas—in the
quarry dump, along the Crystal River, and at the site of the
abandoned finishing plant at Marble, Colo.—appear nearly
pristine. However, when closely examined, one characteristic
feature of this marble is the heterogeneous manner in
which some of it has deteriorated. In buildings in Washington,
D.C., and in Denver, some surfaces of the marble retain
a crisp, nearly new appearance while adjacent surfaces
soften and disaggregate with severe sugaring of the calcite
grains. The varied durability of the marble does not appear
to be related to the composition of the calcite or the inclusions.
The composition of the nearly pure calcite grains
does not vary significantly in various grades and samples of
the marble. The badly deteriorated stones do not contain
more distinct inclusions than their more resistant neighbors,
and because the contrasts in durability occur in adjacent
stones, the differences are not due to exposure of the stones
to specific, local weathering.
Variation in texture and grain size is a characteristic of
the Yule marble deposit. The deposit was formed by contact
metamorphism, and so some portions of the marble body
were closer to the intruding heat source that caused the original
limestone body to recrystallize. Thus, some portions of
the marble could have been more extensively recrystallized
than other portions, and the heterogeneous durability of the
marble may reflect subtle differences in the resulting texture
of the marble. The pronounced surficial sugaring that distinguishes
the less resistant blocks suggests that the problem
may arise because of some characteristic weakness along
the grain boundaries in the marble. Weaknesses along grain
boundaries would be likely if the original grain boundary
widths were wide enough for water to penetrate easily or if
the original calcite grains were rounded. Alternatively, in
resistant blocks, calcite grains may be aligned with the face
of the block, so that water is less able to penetrate along
weak grain boundaries. If samples of resistant and disaggregating
stones at the Lincoln Memorial were collected so that
the texture and grain boundary characteristics could be
examined, it might be possible to clarify the role of grain
boundary characteristics in relation to the variations in durabilty
that we see at the memorial.
Although the stones with pronounced weathering are
very distinctive on close examination, they constitute a relatively
minor proportion of stones in an entire building (Einhorn
Yaffee and Prescott, 1996?). Thus, although they do
not present the ideal appearance, the badly deteriorated surfaces
do not impair the overall structural integrity of the
building. However, the rate of deterioration may be a concern
in the long term. Where the stone of poor durability is
decoratively carved or where it may be further weakened
because it is exposed to direct and continual impact of
weathering agents, such as along a roof parapet, its future
integrity may be a concern. If steps are taken to synthesize
knowledge of the marble characteristics with an understanding
of deterioration processes, specifically those that have
been identified at the Lincoln Memorial, the National Park
Service will be well prepared to develop an effective and
timely preservation approach for the Lincoln Memorial.
REFERENCES CITED
Alessandrini, G., Peruzzi, T., Manganelli Del Fe, C., Vannucci, S.,
Tampone, G., and Cecchi, R., 1979, Investigation on the degradation
of stones. VIII, The working effects on the Candoglia
Marble: Third International Congress on Deterioration
and Preservation of Stone, Venice, October 24–27, 1979, Proceedings,
p. 411–428.
Amoroso, G.G., and Fassina, V., 1983, Stone decay and conservation:
New York, Elsevier, 453 p.
Anonymous, undated, Description of samples of marble [List of
data that probably were submitted to the Lincoln Memorial
Commission]: 3 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings
and Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Bacon, Henry, 1913 [Letter to Lincoln Memorial Commission]:
September 25, 1913, 4 p. (Records of the Office of Public
Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National
Archives.)
Bain, G.W., 1936a, Colorado Yule marble deposit: 35 p., figures.
(Unpublished report on file at the National Park Service, Denver
Service Center, 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Lakewood,
CO 80225.)
———1936b, Petrology of marble: Mineralogist, v. 4, no. 2, p. 3–
4, 30–31; no. 3, p. 5–6, 36–37.
———1941, Geological, chemical and physical problems in the
marble industry: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineers Transactions, v. 144 (Mining Geology), p.
324–339.
Baird, James, 1914a [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: April 14, 1914, 2
p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914b [Letter to J.F. Manning]: July 6, 1914, 3 p. (Records
of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group
42, National Archives.)
———1914c [Letter to J.F. Manning]: September 9, 1914, 2 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914d [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: September 24, 1914, 2
p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Balsley, J.R., Jr., 1941, Deformation of marble under tension at
high pressure: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v.
22, p. 519–525.
Bowles, Oliver, 1939, The stone industries (2d ed.): New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 519 p.
Bureau of Standards, 1914a [Report of tests of marbles for the Lincoln
Memorial Commission]: January 23, 1914, 15 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914b, Report of the Bureau of Standards on the crushing
tests of eight cubes of Colorado Yule marble submitted by
Lincoln Memorial Commission, Washington, D.C., on July

31, 1914: 6 p. (Unpublished(?) report signed by E.B. Rosa,
Acting Director, August 1, 1914.)
Busenberg, Eurybiades, and Plummer, L.N., 1983, Chemical and
X-ray analyses of 175 calcite and marble samples from the
collection of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
83–863, 8 p.
Butler, John, 1915 [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Camuffo, D., Del Monte, M., and Sabbioni, C., 1983, Origin and
growth mechanisms of the sulfated crusts on urban limestone:
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 19, p. 351–359.
Colorado Yule Marble Company, 1996, Colorado Yule marble
physical and mechanical properties: Glenwood Springs,
Colo., 1 p.
Compressed Air Magazine, 1993, Yule marble: Compressed Air
Magazine, March, p. 6–13.
Cram, R.A., 1923, The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.,
Henry Bacon, Architect: Architectural Record, v. 53, no. 297,
p. 479–508.
Dale, T.N., 1912, The commercial marbles of western Vermont:
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 521, 170 p.
Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994, Lincoln Memorial stone survey:
Final Report to the National Park Service, Denver Service
Center, Lakewood, Colo., 285 p.
———1996?, Analytical data base for Lincoln Memorial stone
survey: Report to the National Park Service, Denver Service
Center, Lakewood, Colo.
The Financial World, 1913, Yule marble poor for monuments: The
Financial World (New York), March 29, 1913. (Records of the
Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42,
National Archives.)
French, Daniel C., 1914 [Letter to the Secretary of War (Lindsley
Garrison)]: January 23, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of
Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National
Archives.)
Gaskill, D.L., and Godwin, L.H., 1966, Geologic map of the Marble
quadrangle, Gunnison and Pitkin Counties, Colorado:
U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ–512,
scale 1:24,000.
Griffith, J.H., 1937, Physical properties of typical American rocks:
Iowa State College Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin
131, 56 p.
Griggs, David, and Miller, W.B., 1951, Deformation of Yule marble.
Part I, Compression and extension experiments on dry
Yule marble at 10,000 atmospheres confining pressure, room
temperature: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 62,
p. 853–862.
Harts, W.W., 1914a [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: March
30, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914b [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: April 6,
1914, 1 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914c [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: September
16, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
REFERENCES CITED 37
———1914d [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: September
25, 1914, 1 p. ( Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1915 [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: May 27,
1915, 1 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Holmes, Polly, 1991, Patterns past—A photo essay of Marble, Colorado:
Denver, CO-OP Publishers, 19 p.
Kessler, D.W., 1919, Physical and chemical tests on the commercial
marbles of the United States: Bureau of Standards Technologic
Papers, no. 123, 54 p.
Kirsch, J.P., 1915, The marble columns of the Lincoln Memorial:
Scientific American, v. 112, no. 12, p. 267.
Klusmire, Jon, 1993, Monumental success: Colorado Business
Magazine, May, p. 70–72.
Knopf, E.B., 1949, Fabric changes in Yule marble after deformation
in compression: American Journal of Science, v. 247, no.
7, p. 433–461 (pt. 1); no. 8, p. 537–569 (pt. 2).
Lakes, Arthur, 1895, Colorado marble: Stone, v. 11, no. 3, p. 213–
222.
———1910, Some remarkably fine marble quarries in Colorado:
Mining World, v. 32, p. 609-611.
Lepper, H.A., Jr., 1949, Compression tests on oriented specimens
of Yule marble: American Journal of Science, v. 247, no. 8, p.
570–574.
Lincoln Memorial Commission, 1913 [Hearing transcript]: September
26, 1913, 54 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings
and Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Manning, J.F., 1913a [Letter to W.H. Taft]: June 19, 1913, 2 p.
plus 3 p. enclosures (see Von Schultz and Low, 1907).
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1913b [Letter to H.A. Vale]: June 30, 1913, 1 p. plus 4 p.
enclosures. ( Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914 [Letter to James Baird]: June 26, 1914, 1 p. (Records
of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group
42, National Archives.)
———1915a [Letter to James Baird]: July 20, 1915, 3 p. (Records
of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group
42, National Archives.)
———1915b [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p. (Records
of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group
42, National Archives.)
McCollum, Oscar, Jr., 1993, Marble—A town built on dreams, volume
II: Denver, Sundance Publications, Limited, 352 p.
McGee, E.S., 1991, Influence of microclimate on the deterioration
of historic marble builidngs: APT (Association for Preservation
Technology) Bulletin, v. 23, Special Issue: Historic
Structures in Contemporary Atmospheres, p. 37–42.
Merrill, George P., 1913a [Statement (copy of telegram) to Col.
W.W. Harts]: September 23, 1913, 1 p. (Records of the Office
of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National
Archives.)
———1913b [Statement (copy of telegram) to Col. W.W. Harts]:
September 24, 1913, 1 p. (Records of the Office of Public
Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National
Archives.)

38 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
———1913c [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: September 29, 1913, 2
p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914, A report on the Colorado-Yule marble properties,
based on examinations made in August 1914: 16 p. (Unpublished
report in Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1915, Report on some carbonic acid tests on the weathering
of marbles and limestones: U.S. National Museum Proceedings,
v. 49, no. 2108, p. 347–349.
Murphy, Jack, 1993, Mine locally, build globally: Denver Museum
of Natural History Museum Quarterly, Winter 1993, p. 11.
Ogden, Lawrence, 1961, Non-metallic minerals from rocks of
lower and middle Paleozoic age, in Berg, R.R., and Rold,
J.W., eds., Symposium on Lower and Middle Paleozoic Rocks
of Colorado, Twelfth Field Conference: Denver, Rocky
Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 190–194, 196.
Redfield, William, 1914 [Letter to the Secretary of War]: January
26, 1914, 1 p. plus enclosed 15-p. report. (Records of the
Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42,
National Archives.)
Reis, M., 1994, Rebirth in the Rockies: Stone World, July 1994.
Roberts, D., 1992, When the quarry is marble: Smithsonian, v. 22,
no. 10, p. 98–107.
Rosenholtz, J.L., and Smith, D.T., 1951, The directional concentration
of optic axes in Yule marble—A comparison of the
results of petrofabric analysis and linear thermal expansion:
American Journal of Science, v. 249, p. 377–384.
Stratton, S.W., 1913a [Letter to W.J. Cary]: November 11, 1913, 2
p., includes Bureau of Standards certificate for Colorado Yule
marble, Test No. 14374. (Records of the Office of Public
Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National
Archives.)
———1913b [Letter to A.O. Bacon reporting Bureau of Standards
data]: November 21, 1913, 1 p. (Records of the Office of
Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National
Archives.)
Taft, W.H., 1913 [Letter to Senator Shafroth]: September 30,
1913, 3 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Thill, R.E., Willard, R.J., and Bur, T.R., 1969, Correlation of longitudinal
velocity variation with rock fabric: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 74, no. 20, p. 4897–4909.
Thomas, C.A., 1993–94, The marble of the Lincoln Memorial
“whitest, prettiest, and ... best”: Washington History, v. 5, no.
2, p. 42–63.
Through the Ages, 1931, A block of marble for the unknown soldier’s
tomb: Through the Ages, v. 9, no. 3, p. 24–28.
Vale, H.A., 1913 [Minutes of Lincoln Memorial Commission
meeting]: September 25–26, 1913, 10 p. (Records of the
Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42,
National Archives.)
———1914a [Letter to W.H. Taft]: January 17, 1914, 5 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914b [Telegram to W.H. Taft]: January 26, 1914, 1 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Vandenbusche, Duane, and Myers, Rex, 1991, Marble, Colorado—
City of Stone: Denver, Golden Bell Press, 227 p.
Vanderwilt, J.W., 1937, Geology and mineral deposits of the
Snowmass Mountain area, Gunnison County, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 884, 184 p.
Vanderwilt, J.W., and Fuller, H.C., 1935, Correlation of Colorado
Yule marble and other early Paleozoic formations on Yule
Creek, Gunnison County, Colorado: Colorado Science Society
Proceedings, v. 13, no. 7, p. 439–464.
Von Schultz and Low, 1907 [Analysis of “Golden Vein” white marble
for the Colorado Yule Marble Company]: August 22,
1907, Von Schultz and Low, Chemical Laboratory and Assay
Office, Denver, Colo., 1 p. (Typed copy included as enclosure
in Archives document Manning letter to Taft, June 19, 1913.)
Warren-Findley, Jannelle, 1985, Historic documentation, Lincoln
Memorial: unpublished report of work performed for the
National Park Service, National Capital Parks-Central, under
contract PX–3000–4–1919, 26 p.

APPENDIXES A–C

40
APPENDIX A. MICROANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Both electron microprobe analysis and scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis
(EDAX) are useful microanalytical techniques. The
particular advantages of these techniques are that a sample
(polished thin section, grain mount, or small chip) can be
analyzed nondestructively and that very small areas (~1
micrometer in diameter) can be selected and analyzed while
the sample is examined. The ability to analyze a small area
is especially useful for samples containing very small grains
or for samples having compositional zonation.
In both electron microprobe analysis and scanning
electron microscopy, a beam of electrons is focused on or
rastered across the surface of a conductively coated sample.
When the electron beam interacts with the sample, secondary
electrons, backscattered electrons, and X-rays are generated.
The secondary electrons and backscattered electrons
are detected so that an image of the sample is produced.
Secondary electron images generally show surface features
and topography of the sample. Backscattered electron
images provide compositional information because the various
gray levels in the image reflect variations in the average
atomic number across the sample.
The X-rays that are generated by the electron beam
interaction with the sample also provide compositional
information. If an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrum is collected,
then the energy levels for all of the X-rays generated
are displayed. However, if a wavelength spectrometer is
used to detect the X-rays, it is tuned to measure the X-rays
for one specific wavelength, for a specific element. Quantitative
analyses are made by measuring the X-rays from standards
of known composition so that the X-rays from the
sample of unknown composition can be calibrated.
In this study, the scanning electron microscope (JEOL
JSM–840 with a Princeton Gamma Tech (PGT) energy-dispersive
X-ray detector) was used to examine samples and to
provide qualitative analysis of the mineral phases. The elec-
tron microprobe (JEOL JXA–8900) was used for quantitative
analysis of the major mineral phases in the samples.
Standards of known compositions, similar to the minerals
being analyzed, were used to analyze calcite, mica, quartz,
feldspar, and sulfides (pyrite, sphalerite, and galena):
• Calcite was analyzed at 12 kV accelerating voltage with
a beam current of 1×10 -8 amps, using a rastered beam
and the Phi-Rho-Z correction method (Pouchou and
Pichoir, 1991).
• Mica, quartz, and feldspar were analyzed by using 15
kV accelerating voltage with a beam current of 2×10 -8
amps, using a focused beam and the ZAF correction
method for oxides (Armstrong, 1995).
• Sulfides were analyzed at 25 kV accelerating voltage
with a beam current of 2×10 -8 amps, using a focused
beam and the ZAF correction method for metals (Armstrong,
1995).
Analyses were judged to be of good quality if the
oxide total was between 98.0 and 102.0 and if the
stoichiometry was correct for the phase being analyzed.
However, the check for a good oxide total for the mica and
calcite was made after water and CO 2 were determined by
difference with a check on stoichiometry for micas and
calcite, respectively.
REFERENCES CITED
Armstrong, J.T., 1995, CITZAF—A package of correction programs
for the quantitative electron microbeam X-ray analysis
of thick polished materials, thin films, and particles: Microbeam
Analysis, v. 4, p. 177–200.
Pouchou, J.-L., and Pichoir, F., 1991, Quantitative analysis of
homogeneous or stratified microvolumes applying the model
“PAP,” in Heinrich, K.F.J., and Newberry, D.E., eds., Electron
probe quantitation: New York, Plenum Press, p. 31–76.

APPENDIX B. INFORMATION ABOUT THE QUARRYING AND INSPECTION OF STONE
FOR THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Unfortunately, only scanty information is available
about the quarrying and the rejection of stones during construction
of the Lincoln Memorial. However, information of
that sort may be useful when the durability of the stones in
the Lincoln Memorial is evaluated. Stones quarried from
one particular portion of the quarry may possess similar
characteristics that become visible years later as the stone
weathers in the building. If it is known that stones with a
specific characteristic all come from one part of the quarry,
it is easier to narrow the problem down because it may be
closely related to a characteristic of the stone and less influenced
by exposure or something that has been done to the
stone in the building. Likewise, any descriptions or questions
about flaws that arose during inspection of the stones
might correspond to problems that we can see now in the
stones.
QUARRYING REPORTS
Information about which parts of the Yule quarry were
used for the stone in the Lincoln Memorial might aid in
understanding and correlating the observed variations in
durability of the marble. Several portions of the marble
deposit were used in quarrying operations; the openings
were designated as quarry numbers 1 through 4. During the
construction of the Lincoln Memorial, all quarrying operations
were directed at obtaining stone for the Lincoln
Memorial project, so it is possible that stone was taken from
all portions of the quarry. However, most of the stone for
the Lincoln Memorial may have come from quarries number
1 and 2. Correspondence from 1915, during the construction
of the Lincoln Memorial (Manning, 1915a,b),
indicates that quarries number 1 and 2 were being used to
obtain large pieces for the stylobate courses and drum
blocks. Portions of both quarries were used for drum
blocks, cheek pieces were obtained from quarry number 2,
and while they tried to get pieces for the stylobate from
quarry number 1, they failed (correspondence from Manning,
1915a).
Blocks quarried for the stylobate that failed, presumably
because some flaw showed up as they began finishing
the stone, were used for the GG, WW, and PP courses and
for the architrave (Manning, 1915a). A few blocks that
failed for the stylobate and architrave were used for the
frieze and carved courses (Manning, 1915b). Similarly,
blocks for the column drums were cut to meet the largest
sizes needed (at the base of the columns) and then cut down
for smaller drum courses if flaws appeared during the finishing.
Butler’s letter (1915) describes how a block that was
cut for an AB drum was cut for a GH and then for a KL
drum. If the stone designations used in this correspondence
are the same as those used in the stone setting and recent
stone condition survey at the memorial, it may be possible
to examine particular stones for similarities in texture or
inclusions. Comparisons of some of the stones from the
areas and courses mentioned may also show some similarities
in their condition at the Lincoln Memorial and help
show whether any specific characteristics of the marble
might have been restricted to certain areas of the deposit or
if they occur randomly.
INSPECTIONS
All of the stone was checked before it left the Yule
marble finishing plant to make sure that it met the dimensions
needed (Baird, 1914a). In addition, the stone was
inspected after delivery at the Lincoln Memorial site after it
was uncrated (Baird, 1914b) to determine whether it met
criteria pertaining to quality, appearance, and proper dimensions
(Harts, 1914a). Correspondence, preserved in the
archives, from September 1914 indicates that some specific
stones were identified as having problems when they were
inspected. Six or seven stones were rejected, four stones
were tentatively accepted, and three stones would be used if
they could be modified. The stones and descriptions (Baird,
1914c; Harts, 1914b) were as follows:
• rejected:
- AD 39 west—column base; cracks from fluting to
edge and on face
- AC 33 north—[no specifics given]
- AC 54 south—open crack on face and corner off
- AC 27 north—open crack on the vertical face
- AC 52 west—open crack on face and spalled
- AD 37 west—column base; open crack from fluting
to edge and at corner
- AB 54 west—sand pockets [Harts, 1914b, listed this
as AC, not AB]
• tentatively accepted:
- AC 16 north—closed crack, vertical face
- AC 36 west—closed cracks, horizontal face; accepted
if stone placed on north front
- AC 32 west—closed cracks, vertical face
- AB 33 west—closed crack, horizontal face
• stones to be modified:
- AC 44 west—broken corner; use if cut 2 inches off
- AB 56 south—crack at corner; use if cut 3 1/2 inches
off
- AC 33 west [no specifics given]
41

42
COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
The stones that were tentatively accepted could be
rejected if, by the conclusion of the construction, the cracks
had opened or gotten worse. The stones to be modified
would be used if an acceptable change in the joining plans
was submitted. Two of the stones are specifically identified
as column bases; the others are probably from the stylobate
course because they were described as large stones and the
numbering of the stones is like that used in the stone setting
plans for the stylobate. The numbers used for the stones
here may be the same as those used in the information we
have now for the stone settings. If so, it might be possible to
examine their condition as documented in the recent stone
condition survey (Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994) to see
if the flaws identified nearly 70 years ago are still apparent.
DISCOLORATION
Another interesting piece of information in the
archive’s correspondence that may relate to the present condition
of some of the marble at the Lincoln Memorial
describes some surficial discoloration on two stones. During
an inspection of the marble in July 1914, two stones
showed a yellowish discoloration that workers were unable
to remove from the stone (Baird, 1914b) even after washing.
Baird and a group of people (Bacon, Harts, Gillan, O’Connor,
and Kennedy) suspected that the discoloration might be
from cinders on the surface of the marble that had reacted
with rain. There is no further mention of this issue in later
correspondence, and the Colorado Yule Marble Company
may have tried to avoid future problems with discoloration
by careful boxing and loading of the stone prior to shipment
(Baird, 1914b). Today, some of the stones in the Lincoln
Memorial, particularly some of the antefix stones on the
roof entablature, have a light-orange coloration. It is possible
that, rather than being an inherent characteristic of the
stone, some of that surficial discoloration might instead be a
residue of very fine particles of iron (from cinders?) that
rusted on the surface and lodged in the intergranular spaces
of the marble surfaces. Although some discoloration like
this is present on other buildings that used Yule marble, it
may not cover as many stones in those buildings as it does
in the Lincoln Memorial.
REFERENCES CITED
Baird, James, 1914a [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: April 14, 1914,
2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914b [Letter to J.F. Manning]: July 6, 1914, 3 p. (Records
of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group
42, National Archives.)
———1914c [Letter to J.F. Manning] September 9, 1914, 2 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Butler, John, 1915 [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994, Lincoln Memorial stone survey:
Final Report to the National Park Service, Denver Service
Center, Denver, Colo., 285 p.
Harts, 1914a [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: March 30,
1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1914b [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: September
16, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and
Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)
Manning, J.F., 1915a [Letter to James Baird]: July 20, 1915, 3 p.
(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,
Record Group 42, National Archives.)
———1915b [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p. (Records
of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record
Group 42, National Archives.)

APPENDIX C. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE YULE QUARRY
Although the Colorado Yule marble deposit was first
reported in 1882 (Vanderwilt, 1937), a producing quarry
operation was not established at the deposit until 1906
(Manning, 1914). Samples of the Colorado Yule marble
exhibited at the Colombia Exposition in 1893 brought much
attention to the quality and purity of the marble. The Colorado-Yule
Company's first large contract, for the Cuyahoga
County court house in Cleveland, Ohio, was obtained in
1907 (Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991). The company made
major improvements to its operation and finishing plant to
help it handle the work necessary to fulfill its contract to
provide the marble for the Lincoln Memorial in Washington,
D.C. However, almost immediately after completing
that high-profile contract in 1917, the quarry went into
bankruptcy and ceased operations because of financial problems,
natural disasters, and the loss of skilled laborers during
World War I (Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991). The
quarry was reopened in 1922 (Vanderwilt, 1937), but it
closed again in 1941 when marble was declared nonessential
to the war effort, and much of the machinery and equipment
was sold for scrap metal (Vandenbusche and Myers,
1991).
In 1990, the Yule quarry reopened (McClean, 1990;
Klusmire, 1993). The Colorado Yule Marble Company is
currently operating the quarry and producing dimension
stone for large projects, such as the interior of the new Denver
airport (Klusmire, 1993). In 1992, the quarry shipped
1,000 cubic meters of marble; it will produce about 7,080
cubic meters at full production (Peterson and Cappa, 1994).
The U.S. Bureau of Mines 1992 Annual Report for Colorado
predicts that at the present rate the quarry could last
300 years (Peterson and Cappa, 1994).
REFERENCES CITED
Klusmire, Jon, 1993, Monumental success: Colorado Business
Magazine, May, p. 70–72.
Manning, J.F., 1914, Quarries of the Colorado-Yule Marble Company:
Thirteenth Biennial Report of the Bureau of Mines of
the State of Colorado, Denver, Colo., p. 142–144.
McClean, Steve, 1990, Colorado marble was used in Lincoln
Memorial: Pay Dirt, p. 2–4.
Peterson, E.K., and Cappa, J.A., 1994, 1992 Annual Report: Colorado.
U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, 17 p.
Vandenbusche, Duane, and Myers, Rex, 1991, Marble, Colorado—
City of stone: Denver, Golden Bell Press, 227 p.
Vanderwilt, J.W., 1937, Geology and mineral deposits of the
Snowmass Mountain area, Gunnison County, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 884, 184 p.
43

Selected Series of U.S. Geological Survey Publications
Books and Other Publications
Professional Papers report scientiÞc data and interpretations
of lasting scientiÞc interest that cover all facets of USGS investigations
and research.
Bulletins contain signiÞcant data and interpretations that are of
lasting scientiÞc interest but are generally more limited in
scope or geographic coverage than Professional Papers.
Water-Supply Papers are comprehensive reports that present
signiÞcant interpretive results of hydrologic investigations of
wide interest to professional geologists, hydrologists, and engineers.
The series covers investigations in all phases of hydrology,
including hydrogeology, availability of water, quality of
water, and use of water.
Circulars are reports of programmatic or scientiÞc information
of an ephemeral nature; many present important scientiÞc
information of wide popular interest. Circulars are distributed
at no cost to the public.
Fact Sheets communicate a wide variety of timely information
on USGS programs, projects, and research. They commonly
address issues of public interest. Fact Sheets generally are two
or four pages long and are distributed at no cost to the public.
Reports in the Digital Data Series (DDS) distribute large
amounts of data through digital media, including compact discread-only
memory (CD-ROM). They are high-quality, interpretive
publications designed as self-contained packages for viewing
and interpreting data and typically contain data sets,
software to view the data, and explanatory text.
Water-Resources Investigations Reports are papers of an
interpretive nature made available to the public outside the formal
USGS publications series. Copies are produced on request
(unlike formal USGS publications) and are also available for
public inspection at depositories indicated in USGS catalogs.
Open-File Reports can consist of basic data, preliminary
reports, and a wide range of scientiÞc documents on USGS
investigations. Open-File Reports are designed for fast release
and are available for public consultation at depositories.
Maps
Geologic Quadrangle Maps (GQÕs) are multicolor geologic
maps on topographic bases in 7.5- or 15-minute quadrangle
formats (scales mainly 1:24,000 or 1:62,500) showing bedrock,
surÞcial, or engineering geology. Maps generally include brief
texts; some maps include structure and columnar sections only.
Geophysical Investigations Maps (GPÕs) are on topographic
or planimetric bases at various scales. They show results of
geophysical investigations using gravity, magnetic, seismic, or
radioactivity surveys, which provide data on subsurface structures
that are of economic or geologic signiÞcance.
Miscellaneous Investigations Series Maps or Geologic
Investigations Series (IÕs) are on planimetric or topographic
bases at various scales; they present a wide variety of format
and subject matter. The series also incudes 7.5-minute quadrangle
photogeologic maps on planimetric bases and planetary
maps.
Information Periodicals
Metal Industry Indicators (MIIÕs) is a free monthly newsletter
that analyzes and forecasts the economic health of Þve
metal industries with composite leading and coincident
indexes: primary metals, steel, copper, primary and secondary
aluminum, and aluminum mill products.
Mineral Industry Surveys (MISÕs) are free periodic statistical
and economic reports designed to provide timely statistical data
on production, distribution, stocks, and consumption of signiÞcant
mineral commodities. The surveys are issued monthly,
quarterly, annually, or at other regular intervals, depending on
the need for current data. The MISÕs are published by commodity
as well as by State. A series of international MISÕs is also
available.
Published on an annual basis, Mineral Commodity Summaries
is the earliest Government publication to furnish estimates
covering nonfuel mineral industry data. Data sheets contain
information on the domestic industry structure, Government
programs, tariffs, and 5-year salient statistics for more than 90
individual minerals and materials.
The Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the
worldwide minerals and materials industry during a calendar
year, and it provides background information to assist in interpreting
that performance. The Minerals Yearbook consists of
three volumes. Volume I, Metals and Minerals, contains chapters
about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities
important to the U.S. economy. Volume II, Area Reports:
Domestic, contains a chapter on the minerals industry of each
of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands.
Volume III, Area Reports: International, is published as four
separate reports. These reports collectively contain the latest
available mineral data on more than 190 foreign countries and
discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these
nations and the United States.
Permanent Catalogs
ÒPublications of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1879Ð1961Ó
and ÒPublications of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1962Ð
1970Ó are available in paperback book form and as a set of
microÞche.
ÒPublications of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1971Ð1981Ó is
available in paperback book form (two volumes, publications
listing and index) and as a set of microÞche.
Annual supplements for 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and
subsequent years are available in paperback book form.

Printed on recycled paper
McGee—COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL—U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2162